My two favorite arguments for creation

[Nathan Poe]

Kudos! Excellent Post!

OK. So then would you agree that God equates to divine intervention? Meaning - it is God that needs to be left out of all science?
Or is it that God is unecessary for the process of life? Please clarify this point.

Science is the study of the natural world and the laws by which it runs.
God is, by definition, supernatural, and science is unequipped to study Him, so science remains agnostic.

Maybe there is a God, and maybe there is not. But what scientists study are processes that work whether or not God is involved.

I drop a rock; gravity makes it fall. Is God responsible for gravity? Doesn't matter. We're studying gravity, not God.

Is God necessaryfor the process of life? Is that a question we can even answer scientifically? If we can't even determine if God's responsible for gravity, how can we know if He's behind the processes of life.

The answer is the same as for gravity: It doesn't matter. If God is behind it, He's working from deep behind the scenes. Until He decides to step out from behind the curtain (assuming He ever does, and why should he?), The processes work the way they always have.... easy enough to study.

Agreed (-1). If as it seems in this context supernatural equates to God then yes it is faith. The -1 intrduces a greater topic for discussion: is the supernatural any less a part of reality than the natural? Are they not boud to eachother in the same way that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? Wouldn't even science have to conclude that the universe is far more than we can see? Far more than natural explanation? (But I digress)

As I said, we seek natural explainations before invoking the supernatural. And we can never rule out natural explanations because we can never eliminate the answer of : "We don't know; we can't figure it out."

And "We don't know; we can't figure it out" is not the same thing as "Goddidit." God-of-the-Gaps is bad science and worse theology.

So it's something of a catch-22: Since we live in the natural world, the supernatural is something beyond our understanding. We need faith to assume it even exists. And science is founded on skepticism, not faith.

AWA. I thought you were an Atheist?

1: I wasn't always an Atheist.

2: I can play Devil's Advocate... no pun intended.

3: Even though I personally don't believe in a god, I have more respect for the idea than to reduce Him to an intellectual cop-out. "Oh, well, we'll never understand it; God works in mysterious ways..."

Maybe we never will understand it; but that's not excuse not to try.

I used to have this quote in my sig:

"Men think epilepsy divine, simply because they do not understand it. But if we were to call everything divine which we do not understand, why, there would be no end of divine things." --Hippocrates.


Reducing God to an excuse for the things we don't know -- God-of-the-Gaps -- means that believers will be looking for "God" in anything we don't understand. That makes an idol out of ignorance.

Christians are supposed to be against idolatry, and I can't stand ignorance.

 

[w81minit]

I wouldn't say there is no evidence, but you were asking specifically about eyewitness accounts.

Eye witness or not - the assertion made was that the Gospels could not be trusted. I am now asking that is it not to be believed that Abraham existed. That Noah existed. I guess the answer is yes. Without absolute proof you seem willing to believe that these are all terrific sounding myths that keep people under the thumb of organized religion. (not trying to put words in your mouth. I am merely gathering what I think to be your position)

Most Jewish and Christian scholars would disagree. The Torah was compiled by rabbis during the Babylonian exile from various written and oral sources.

We are speeking of different things, perhaps. Prior to the Babylonian exile (as recording in the book of the kings) many Kings of Isreal read from the Book of the Law of Moses, which included the Torah - Pentatuch - the first 5 Books of the Bible. Perhaps you are referring to some of the supporting writtings such as the Prophetic books. Further the book of the kings records that the writings were lost and found and various times because not all kings followed the commandments it contained.

Of course. I doubt very much that Noah existed. The story of Noah reads more like a legend than a historical account, and seems to be based on an older Babylonian story.

You are refering to a nearly culturally universal account of a ancient flood. Asian cultures, Egyptian cultures, and Babylonian cultures all supported the notion of a great flood. Most noteably the Noahican flood. In Babylon it was understood as the story of Gilgamesh. That the story reads like a narrative doesn't make it fiction. That there are conflicting accounts only points out that the story was passed down in various tongues, and that the preception of the survivors (perhaps) through cultural necessity prompted different emphasis. That in no way discounts Noah's existence.

 

[w81minit]

Science is the study of the natural world and the laws by which it runs.
God is, by definition, supernatural, and science is unequipped to study Him, so science remains agnostic.

Maybe there is a God, and maybe there is not. But what scientists study are processes that work whether or not God is involved.

I drop a rock; gravity makes it fall. Is God responsible for gravity? Doesn't matter. We're studying gravity, not God.

Understood. AWA. I guess then the question is to what end does science study. I don't mean in an acedemic sense. I mean take joe scientist. What is the driving force behind his study? Where evolution is concerned, what is Joe's purpose for his pursuit of knowledge?

So it's something of a catch-22: Since we live in the natural world, the supernatural is something beyond our understanding. We need faith to assume it even exists. And science is founded on skepticism, not faith.

Here is where we disagree. Maybe I am a romantic, but when I look at the universe I do not assume that I can figure it out. I don't look at it as though it is within my ability to comprehend. The average person can't even picture in there mind the concept of a million, let alone 4 billion. I think it is in this 'gotcha' where most people accept evolution as true. They see changes in what they see in a relatively short period of time, and they assume that - Gosh over 4 Billion years anything could happen!
I would contend that the natural world points to the supernatural. That human existence demands that there is something more than what we see. Certainly there is a branch of science that studies the paranormal. What is that but outside the natural realm?
I am rambling... but you get the idea.

1: I wasn't always an Atheist... I can't stand ignorance.

Ahhh.
I share your contempt for ignorance. It drives me to pity and anger. Where science has abounded ignorance has followed. Presentation of facts seems to illuminate ignorance. Presentation of truth even more so.

 

[Physics_guy]

Certainly there is a branch of science that studies the paranormal.

Not really.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Where science has abounded ignorance has followed.

Would you mind giving us examples for this nasty little unfounded claim?

Edited to add: I don't want to hear any single-item Piltdown bul&%$#@. You say that where science has abounded, ignorance has followed. That encompasses all of science. Good luck.

 

[w81minit]

Not really.

Does that really even qualify as a post?

 

[w81minit]

Would you mind giving us examples for this nasty little unfounded claim?

Logic - If all of us were ignorant who would be the one to point it out? It is not nasty, not unfounded, and my intention was not to offend you. Hopefully, unless you provoke venom, you won't get it from me. :crosself:

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Where science has abounded ignorance has followed.

Would you mind giving us examples for this nasty little unfounded claim?

Logic - If all of us were ignorant who would be the one to point it out? It is not nasty, not unfounded, and my intention was not to offend you. Hopefully, unless you provoke venom, you won't get it from me. :crosself:

Just give me the examples. I stand by my assessment of your claim until you support it with evidence. If you consider that worthy of a venom-strike, then I'll have to alert my mongooses.

 

[Vance]

"Understood. AWA. I guess then the question is to what end does science study. I don't mean in an acedemic sense. I mean take joe scientist. What is the driving force behind his study? Where evolution is concerned, what is Joe's purpose for his pursuit of knowledge?"

Man studies because he wants to know how things work. It really is that simple. Some peope have a built-in desire to figure out the processes and mechanics of what they see around them. To the extent that what they see is the direct result of a supernatural act, they will not be able to discover with purely scientific investigation how it was done, or even that it was done supernaturally, so they will be left without answers. To the extent what they see is the result of a natural process (even if designed and developed by God), then they will often be able to figure it out.

But the bottom line is pure curiosity.

 

[w81minit]

Just give me the examples...

Seriously, Mr Borg. Do you not follow the logic? The post itself provided the explanation

Presentation of facts seems to illuminate ignorance. Presentation of truth even more so.

What are you driving at? It is completely self contained.

 

[w81minit]

"Understood. AWA. I guess then the question is to what end does science study. I don't mean in an acedemic sense. I mean take joe scientist. What is the driving force behind his study? Where evolution is concerned, what is Joe's purpose for his pursuit of knowledge?"

Man studies because he wants to know how things work. It really is that simple. Some peope have a built-in desire to figure out the processes and mechanics of what they see around them. To the extent that what they see is the direct result of a supernatural act, they will not be able to discover with purely scientific investigation how it was done, or even that it was done supernaturally, so they will be left without answers. To the extent what they see is the result of a natural process (even if designed and developed by God), then they will often be able to figure it out.

But the bottom line is pure curiosity.

VANCE...Nuff said. AWA.
The implications of some of the conclusions drawn may have a much further degree of impact that what was originally understood. The myth of pandora's box comes to mind.
There is a verse in Psalms that says - when the foundation is shaken what can the righteous do? I believe it may be a retorical question in that it is a call to plead to God. The implication is that there may be a chain reaction set in motion that man would want to undo, but can't. (that however is a theological discussion)

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Seriously, Mr Borg. Do you not follow the logic? The post itself provided the explanation

minit, old chap- I asked for examples. Your explanation does not suffice.

What are you driving at? It is completely self contained.

Thank you for responding to your own quote, whatever you meant. Now, can you give me instances where science abounds and ignorance follows? It was your initial claim that this is the rule. Don't bother with more hand-waving, just support your claim!

 

[w81minit]

minit, old chap- I asked for examples. Your explanation does not suffice.


Thank you for responding to your own quote, whatever you meant. Now, can you give me instances where science abounds and ignorance follows? It was your initial claim that this is the rule. Don't bother with more hand-waving, just support your claim!

One popular myth is that Christopher Columbus believed the wold was round because of his observations. He sailed to America in an effort to discover a new route to the Andes. (If memory serves) All of those ignorant folks who believed the Earth to be flat had their ignorance revealed. Science abounded, ignorance follows. Without the enlighted, there would be no understanding of ignorance.

Follows another quote I find humorous (From a 3rd Base song Stymies Theme)
He is stupid, but he knows he is stupid, and that almost makes him smart.

I figured for sure the logic would have sufficed - Does this explanation meet your criteria for an example?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Understood. AWA. I guess then the question is to what end does science study. I don't mean in an acedemic sense. I mean take joe scientist. What is the driving force behind his study? Where evolution is concerned, what is Joe's purpose for his pursuit of knowledge?

Now we're getting into more philosophical territory: What motivates Joe Scientist?

Well, what motivates anybody?

If Joe Scientist is a theist, and believes that God created the world, then Joe is learning more and more about how God did it. How cool is that?
Of course, this could apply to any scientific field, not just evolution.

Here is where we disagree. Maybe I am a romantic, but when I look at the universe I do not assume that I can figure it out. I don't look at it as though it is within my ability to comprehend.

Of course not! No scientist is naive enough to think that they're going to unravel all the mysteries of the universe. We never will. But we can learn more about the universe than we knew yesterday, pass that knowledge on to our children tomorrow, and let them take it from there.

We won't figure out the universe, we never will. Every answer raises a dozen more questions. But in the search for knowledge, the adventure lies not in the destination, but in the journey itself.

"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder." --Ralph W. Sockman.

The average person can't even picture in there mind the concept of a million, let alone 4 billion. I think it is in this 'gotcha' where most people accept evolution as true. They see changes in what they see in a relatively short period of time, and they assume that - Gosh over 4 Billion years anything could happen!

Count to one million. One number per second, non-stop. You'll be done in 12 days.

Now try counting to one billion. Same pace, same rules. Don't make any plans for the next 32 years.

It is mind-boggling; no doubt about it. As you said, considering what we see in a short period of time, anything could happen...

I would contend that the natural world points to the supernatural. That human existence demands that there is something more than what we see. Certainly there is a branch of science that studies the paranormal. What is that but outside the natural realm?

1: The human existence demands a lot of things, but that does not make them so.

2: The idea behind paranormal research is that phenomena that many people would consider supernatural is in fact, a part of the natural world, and as such, can be studied through natural means.

I am rambling... but you get the idea.

Yes I do.

Ahhh.
I share your contempt for ignorance. It drives me to pity and anger. Where science has abounded ignorance has followed. Presentation of facts seems to illuminate ignorance. Presentation of truth even more so.

You've hit it on the head. The "problem" with science is that it illuminates/exposes our ignorance, since as I said, every answer raises a dozen more questions. The more we learn, the more we find out we don't know.

It can be traumatic, even painful, but then again, growing up always is.

"Modern science has been a voyage into the unknown, with a lesson in humility waiting at every stop. Many passengers would rather have stayed home." -- Carl Sagan.

 

[Nathan Poe]

One popular myth is that Christopher Columbus believed the wold was round because of his observations. He sailed to America in an effort to discover a new route to the Andes. (If memory serves) All of those ignorant folks who believed the Earth to be flat had their ignorance revealed. Science abounded, ignorance follows. Without the enlighted, there would be no understanding of ignorance.

Slightly off-topic, but this truly is a myth. By the time of Columbus, all but the most ignorant peasant knew that the Earth was round. The ancient Greeks, specifically a chap named Eratosthenes, not only figured this out, but successfully measured the circumfrence of the Earth(off by only a couple hundred miles) around the 3rd century B.C.

What the scholars of the time tried to warn Columbus is not that the world was flat, but that it was too big. They insisted that the ships available at the time would never be able to make the journey.

And here's the punchline: they were absolutely right. If the Americas hadn't been there, Columbus's ships would have run out of supplies, and he and his crew would have starved to death about 2/3 of the way to the Indies.

Talk about luck!

Follows another quote I find humorous (From a 3rd Base song Stymies Theme)
He is stupid, but he knows he is stupid, and that almost makes him smart.

"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." --Shakespeare.

I figured for sure the logic would have sufficed - Does this explanation meet your criteria for an example?

"The world's full of fools who will stand for anything except for being shown up as the fools they are." --Mark Twain

 

[Angeldove97]

Okay boys...let's play:

The watch and the watchmaker-

(God made the watchmaker and inspired us to make watches)

My #1 favorite argument against creationism: A global flood never occured.

(How do you know? Have you been living as long as God has? No I don't think so...plus fyi, science major here and yes if you check the mountains and most any part of the world you WILL find oceanic fossils)

My #1 favourite argument against Creationism: Most fundamentalists believe it.
(Fine that's their opinion, but it's really Satan casting a veil over the Truth. And one day God is going to prove it)

Okay....so you may have your reasons....but what real PROOF do you have against God?

 

[Hydra009]

My #1 favorite argument against creationism: A global flood never occured.

(How do you know? Have you been living as long as God has? No I don't think so...plus fyi, science major here and yes if you check the mountains and most any part of the world you WILL find oceanic fossils)

We know because empirical evidence disproves a global flood. http://www.christianforums.com/t95378&page=1&pp=40

A biology major should know better than that.

The "were you there?" argument that creationists have been known to argue is very poor argument. It denies all knowledge that isn't gained firsthand at the exact time the incident took place. If I were to walk across the neighborhood and see a smoldering pile of ash, charred wood, and debris where a house once had been, and I where to say that the house had probably burnt down, would anyone question my conclusion on the basis that I wasn't there when the alleged fire took place?

My #1 favourite argument against Creationism: Most fundamentalists believe it.

To my knowledge, no one has ever made this claim. Poisoning the well isn't a good debate tactic.

(Fine that's their opinion, but it's really Satan casting a veil over the Truth. And one day God is going to prove it)

Okkkaaayy...

Okay....so you may have your reasons....but what real PROOF do you have against God?

You seem to be confusing evolution with atheism. Evolution doesn't make claims about God, and as theistic evolutionists can attest, it certainly isn't about disproving God.

 

[Angeldove97]

Some links of interest:

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
http://members.aol.com/zimlechem/Science.html

 

[Vance]

You know, those of us who are Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christians, but believe in an old earth and accept evolution, find it insulting and a bit presumptuous when people claim that a belief in evolution is a DISbelief in God or the truth of the Bible.

Don't they realize that, outside the US, the majority of Christians accept evolution and the true age of the earth?

 

[nyjbarnes]

You know, those of us who are Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christians, but believe in an old earth and accept evolution, find it insulting and a bit presumptuous when people claim that a belief in evolution is a DISbelief in God or the truth of the Bible.

Don't they realize that, outside the US, the majority of Christians accept evolution and the true age of the earth?

Just being fair vance, that doesn't make it right. Though I understand what you are saying.