Is it pointless to try to mesh science with religion?

[marktheblake]

It's a excuse, There is no framework,

Of course there is, it is really very ignorant for you to deny that.

Background beliefs differ. As a result, where observers operate under different paradigms, rational observers may find different meaning in scientific evidence from the same event.
Thomas Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolution

He gets it, so you should too.

It's more a case of, only accepting the evidence that fits what you want.

Creationists say that about evolutionists, that means nothing,.

but from what I see for creationism to work, it requires alot of adding suppositions, or making Ad Hoc's to explain things.

Ditto!

Sat down and said, "Okay what does evolution really say about stuff." watched it, watched creationists videos by Ken Ham, kent hovind, that one guy in the cowboy hat I can never remember,

The simple fact that you linked Kent Hovind (a high school science teacher come evangelist) as representative of what Creationists say suggest that you have not done any serious research at all.

But here lets test your theory

Its not a theory, its normal science. There is not a thing you can think of to discredit YEC that has not already being addressed by them somewhere. That you dont like their answer does not matter.

 

[Pats]

I actually dropped in today to post a similar question, "Why does taking a side of Creationist vs TE make a difference to you?"

But I will behave and go start my own thread. It just seemed to me like the subject is similar.

 

[Faith.Man]

Oh ok, there have been a number of Creationists who followed the vein, don't have a problem with it myself. Actually I kind of like it, it could explain a lot. If that is all there is to it then there isn't a dimes worth of difference between OEC and YEC, at least not in my estimation.

Grace and peace,
Mark

As for the six days (24 hour) of creation, you are correct. There are at least three types of OEC; Day-Age, Theistic Evolution and Ruin-Reconstruction (Gap Theory). I somehow always get lumped in with those that believe in theistic evolution.

 

[gluadys]

As for the six days (24 hour) of creation, you are correct. There are at least three types of OEC; Day-Age, Theistic Evolution and Ruin-Reconstruction (Gap Theory). I somehow always get lumped in with those that believe in theistic evolution.

Strange. I see Ruin-Reconstruction as being much more aligned with YEC. I can see an overlap of Day-Age (aka Progressive Creation) with TE, though to my mind it is closest to Intelligent Design.

 

[Bushido216]

Of course there is, it is really very ignorant for you to deny that.

Background beliefs differ. As a result, where observers operate under different paradigms, rational observers may find different meaning in scientific evidence from the same event.
Thomas Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolution

He gets it, so you should too.

I also speak philosophy, and I can assure you that creationism isn't normal science.

For that matter, Kuhn hardly suggests that having a different paradigm lends validity to one's beliefs, he merely suggests that it can give different colour to one's beliefs.

That being said, some paradigms are demonstrably better than others.

 

[Faith.Man]

Strange. I see Ruin-Reconstruction as being much more aligned with YEC. I can see an overlap of Day-Age (aka Progressive Creation) with TE, though to my mind it is closest to Intelligent Design.

Because Ruin-Reconstruction and Young Earth Creationism believe in a literal 6 days of creation, 1 day of rest, you wouldn't think there would be much animosity between the competing theories. I read a lot of Day-Age creationism books. The ones I've read do not support evolution. I'm not sure what all falls under the umbrella of Intelligent Design. What does Intelligent Design mean to you?

 

[gluadys]

Because Ruin-Reconstruction and Young Earth Creationism believe in a literal 6 days of creation, 1 day of rest, you wouldn't think there would be much animosity between the competing theories. I read a lot of Day-Age creationism books. The ones I've read do not support evolution. I'm not sure what all falls under the umbrella of Intelligent Design. What does Intelligent Design mean to you?

I find the ID notion of evolution much like the YEC "orchard" view. Some evolution allowed for minor adaptations, but no common descent of large groups. However, many IDists accept an old earth in a way that is consistent with Day-Age views, so they don't necessarily see all the "trees" in the "orchard" planted at the same time.

Also, if I understand them correctly, they don't see evolution as handling all developments once a family tree is rooted either. I think they see evolution being interrupted, as it were, whenever needed for a major design change.

 

[Faith.Man]

I find the ID notion of evolution much like the YEC "orchard" view. Some evolution allowed for minor adaptations, but no common descent of large groups. However, many IDists accept an old earth in a way that is consistent with Day-Age views, so they don't necessarily see all the "trees" in the "orchard" planted at the same time.

Also, if I understand them correctly, they don't see evolution as handling all developments once a family tree is rooted either. I think they see evolution being interrupted, as it were, whenever needed for a major design change.

Thank you for the explanation.

God bless.

 

[marktheblake]

I also speak philosophy, and I can assure you that creationism isn't normal science.

at least you agree that it is science nevertheless.

[/quote]That being said, some paradigms are demonstrably better than others.[/quote]

Of course, am sure yours is definitely so compared to an opposing one.

 

[Bushido216]

at least you agree that it is science nevertheless.

That being said, some paradigms are demonstrably better than others.[/quote]

Of course, am sure yours is definitely so compared to an opposing one.[/QUOTE]


No, I'm not suggesting that creationism is science. Don't put words in my mouth. And yes, my paradigm is superior to any other paradigm thus far conceived.

 

[sungaunga]

I have a great sermon dealing with this issue by pastor Adrian Rogers. Just remember that it is God who created science. Whenever Science claims that the Bible is wrong, just give em some time to catch up

YouTube - Adrian Rogers - [1/3] How To Be Certain The Bible Is the Word of God

 

[Assyrian]

So when is science going to catch up and tell us Copernicus go to it wrong?

 

[marktheblake]

No, I'm not suggesting that creationism is science. Don't put words in my mouth.

Dont have to - YOU said it.

And yes, my paradigm is superior to any other paradigm thus far conceived.

Of course, there is no need to state the bleedin obvious.

 

[Bushido216]

Dont have to - YOU said it.

Fine. Now I'm stating quite clearly that creationism isn't science.

If your best is to repeat what I say with a non-sensical comment attached, I will no longer devote effort to whatever it is you have to say.

 

[marktheblake]

Fine. Now I'm stating quite clearly that creationism isn't science.

Now here is a hypothetical from your perspective. If it really happened the way Genesis really described Creation, would that make it science?

 

[Bushido216]

No.

Science is a process. Getting lucky isn't science. The results obtained from the process are science. If the process generated achieved results congruent with the literal Genesis account, then you'd have both the Genesis account and a scientific account that would be similar. The Genesis story qua story isn't science, and wouldn't be even if it were right.

 

[marktheblake]

The Genesis story qua story isn't science, and wouldn't be even if it were right.

I didn't ask if Genesis would be science.

Creation is the act of God creating everything as described in Genesis. The study of our world in light of that if was true, would be called science or not?

 

[gluadys]

I didn't ask if Genesis would be science.

Creation is the act of God creating everything as described in Genesis. The study of our world in light of that if was true, would be called science or not?

No more than the study of Christ's resurrection is science. Just because something is true doesn't make it scientifically intelligible. Science requires understanding how it can be true through understanding the principles and mechanisms involved.

 

[Bushido216]

No more than the study of Christ's resurrection is science. Just because something is true doesn't make it scientifically intelligible. Science requires understanding how it can be true through understanding the principles and mechanisms involved.

/endorse

 

[marktheblake]

Just because something is true doesn't make it scientifically intelligible. Science requires understanding how it can be true through understanding the principles and mechanisms involved.