Let the Reckoning Begin

[BPPLEE]

Is it possible that the scientists are fallible, incorrect, and just flat out wrong?

The Christians who believed that the sun revolved around the earth had extremely shakey, if any, Scriptural ground upon which to stand.

And it was the science of the time that gave them that idea wasn’t it?

 

[Vambram]

And it was the science of the time that gave them that idea wasn’t it?

Agreed.

 

[Vambram]

Yes. The proper way to demonstrate that is with a competing theory that is better at explaining the evidence than the current one.

Detractors of evolution have been unable to propose such a thing.

(And honestly, with the amount of evidence and the explanatory power of evolution, whatever replacement theory comes along will have to look an awful lot like evolution. Just like any future cosmological theory will have to look a lot like the Big Bang Theory. Or atomic theory. Or germ theory.)

100% I Respectfully disagree.

 

[Belk]

Is it possible that the scientists are fallible, incorrect, and just flat out wrong?

Can't answer the question huh?

The Christians who believed that the sun revolved around the earth had extremely shakey, if any, Scriptural ground upon which to stand.

But they were wrong, correct? Is it possible for you to be wrong?

 

[Belk]

And it was the science of the time that gave them that idea wasn’t it?

Science was not even a thing then, so no. It was the philosophy of Plato where they got the idea.

 

[BPPLEE]

Science was not even a thing then, so no. It was the philosophy of Plato where they got the idea.

The philosophy of Plato was the science of the day.

History of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Vambram]

Can't answer the question huh?

But they were wrong, correct? Is it possible for you to be wrong?

Of course it is possible that I could be wrong.
Is it possible that you are wrong about evolution and creation?

 

[Belk]

Of course it is possible that I could be wrong.
Is it possible that you are wrong about evolution and creation?

For me?
Yes, I could be wrong.

For science?
No. At this point for the idea of evolution to be wrong our understanding of the world around us would have to be so fundamentally flawed that we would need to rethink everything we know. It is not like this is some new science. This is the single most well tested and evidenced theory we have. For it to be wrong and is so outrageously unlikely as the world actually being flat. To be clear that does not mean we know everything or that there are not aspects of biology that might not change. But life on this planet evolved. If God created life then he did so and had evolution doing the heavy lifting.

 

[Belk]

The philosophy of Plato was the science of the day.

History of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

To call it science is, I think, a misnomer. It was the understanding of the day to be certain but this is on the same level as saying the universe being made up of earth, wind, water, and fire was science. It was not.

 

[Vambram]

For me?
Yes, I could be wrong.

For science?
No. At this point for the idea of evolution to be wrong our understanding of the world around us would have to be so fundamentally flawed that we would need to rethink everything we know. It is not like this is some new science. This is the single most well tested and evidenced theory we have. For it to be wrong and is so outrageously unlikely as the world actually being flat. To be clear that does not mean we know everything or that their are not aspects of biology that might not change. But life on this planet evolved. If God created life then he did so and had evolution doing the heavy lifting.

Obviously, I completely and totally disagree with that conclusion about macro evolution. I always shall unless God Himself tells me otherwise.

 

[BPPLEE]

To call it science is, I think, a misnomer. It was the understanding of the day to be certain but this is on the same level as saying the universe being made up of earth, wind, water, and fire was science. It was not.

It was science in its infancy. A flat earth and geocentric theory had to be corrected, like many scientific theories, You could call it the evolution of science

 

[essentialsaltes]

100% I Respectfully disagree.

With what part? Or are you saying you disagree with 100% of it?

(That would suggest that you believe that a better theory would be worse at explaining the available evidence.)

 

[essentialsaltes]

It was science in its infancy. A flat earth and geocentric theory had to be corrected, like many scientific theories,

The ancient Greeks (at least the proto-scientists) knew the earth wasn't flat.

(most Christian authorities also knew the earth wasn't flat, though they got a bit fuzzy about it in the Dark Ages.)

 

[BPPLEE]

The ancient Greeks (at least the proto-scientists) knew the earth wasn't flat.

See, they were already advancing. We also had to learn that that there weren’t four humours in the body.

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

The Horror!

At first I thought it said WRATH. And that's exactly what it is, Satans wrath, for he knows he has but a short time. Just need to draw a little diagonal line on that "P" in WPATH !

Rev. 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time

 

[Belk]

Obviously, I completely and totally disagree with that conclusion about macro evolution. I always shall unless God Himself tells me otherwise.

Yes. That is why many of us see faith as problematic. Like many things it can be a double edge sword. It has inspired great learning and it has inspired dogmatic adherence. It can often be hard to tell which is which. In any case best of luck.

 

[Belk]

It was science in its infancy. A flat earth and geocentric theory had to be corrected, like many scientific theories, You could call it the evolution of science

A fair statement.

 

[Vambram]

Yes. That is why many of us see faith as problematic. Like many things it can be a double edge sword. It has inspired great learning and it has inspired dogmatic adherence. It can often be hard to tell which is which. In any case best of luck.

Best of luck to you as well.

 

[BPPLEE]

Yes. That is why many of us see faith as problematic. Like many things it can be a double edge sword. It has inspired great learning and it has inspired dogmatic adherence. It can often be hard to tell which is which. In any case best of luck.

I have learned that many of the positions that I held and believed were correct were because that’s what I had always been taught and I rejected information that contradicted the way I had been taught and believed sources that didn’t contradict it.
I am not so dogmatic anymore and see that there are other possibilities than what I had always believed

 

[Hans Blaster]

that is cherry picking.

No!

It's literally the *MOST* important fact in the whole "thermodynamics and life" debate. The Sun does indeed exist and drives things well out of equilibrium. It is the source of "negative entropy" needed to create order in living systems.