Why do some Christian's dismiss Creationism?

[ThaiDuykhang]

TEs don't try to explain the resurrection of Jesus using physics. We recognize this is a miracle that transcends physics.

Apparently you are making judgments about TE on the basis of false information.

Creation is a process transcends physics law. Jesus' resurrection is just an example showing how absurd one can arrive at trying to explain miracles using physics.

you might wish to attack God's ex-nihili creation of the universe. physics states one can't create something out of nothing

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Pure Enlightenment reasoning. This is how the philosophers of the Enlightenment narrowed the meaning of 'truth'. This is the basis of materialistic thinking. The logical conclusion of such thinking is atheism, for there is no factual basis for believing in the existence of God or any conclusion that flows from the existence of God.

If this was correct Jesus lied when he told Thomas "Blessed are those who do not see, yet believe." And the writer of Hebrews lied when he said "Faith is the evidence of things not seen."

Don't switch side. always keep in mind you're a TE
what you're ridiculing is "If something can't be (scientifically) proved then it's not truth" which is the belief of TEs.
Something is true not because one has seen it or proved it. that's my point. you end up with a misunderstanding and bashing your own side. I accept Creation is a miracle and can't be explained by physics (alone). it can be explained by approaching God with love.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Don't switch side. always keep in mind you're a TE
what you're ridiculing is "If something can't be (scientifically) proved then it's not truth" which is the belief of TEs.
Something is true not because one has seen it or proved it. that's my point. you end up with a misunderstanding and bashing your own side. I accept Creation is a miracle and can't be explained by physics (alone). it can be explained by approaching God with love.

Truth doesn't need to have empirical proof, but empirical evidence and truth cannot contradict.

The most important truths cannot be empirically tested.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

And that is the difference between ancient creationism and modern creationism. Modern creationism does claim to be scientifically true and has been seeking entrance into the science curriculum.

Modern Creationism("Intelligent Design") takes a scientific form by allowing it to be falsified. If someone can prove there're some idiotic features of a species then it's falsified. but so far no one can do it. the conclusion is the same we don't come from evolution.

Why do you see doubt where there is none?

First, this is addressed to ebia, not all TEs, however if your understanding of Bible is the same as ebia, consider yourself also apply.
Second, for "sola scriptula" to apply, one need to repel any attack on Bible. one can't allow truth contradicting Bible or take an indifference attitude. you'd better wait ebia gives an example. but I very much doubt he ever will.
btw I'm not sola scriptula but I also believe Bible's inerrency

Genesis is true for us; just not factual history.

What conclusion can you draw from falsehood? If TE is true, then the process described in Genesis is false, remember.

What is received by faith is considered true without supporting evidence from the physical world. Remember what Jesus told Thomas.

no scientist can claim evolution is proved beyond doubt. evolution is like phrenology in 19th century.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Irrelevant. The ancient and medieval philosophers and theologians who believed the earth was motionless and that the bible supported this belief were not using a framework of General Relativity. They believed the earth was absolutely motionless and that this was a biblical teaching.

How was it possible for them to be fooled by the bible for so long?

Just one question, according to GR, their conclusion and Bible's statements that earth is motionless and the center of universe is right or wrong?

God is not the author of the bible. God is the one who inspired the authors.

never mind, Why God inspired non-factual falsehood in the Bible? Why God doesn't make the Bible reads "God caught an ape and give it an eternal soul to make it a human"?

And I am not criticising God or the bible. It is you--or rather your interpretation--of the bible that I am criticizing. Do you know what 'hubris' means?

When reading Bible, you assume you knows some hidden knowledge God doesn't want you to know. you assume God deliberately hide evolution from you in the Bible(if not answer the question above).

Because he wrote no theological works about his scientific theories.

Whenever he claims humans comes from apes instead directly made by God out of dust. it's theological

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Are parables true? Yes.

Are parables historical? No.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Truth doesn't need to have empirical proof, but empirical evidence and truth cannot contradict.

The most important truths cannot be empirically tested.

TE is what is drawn from from empirical evidence. instead of empirical evidence themselves.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Are parables true? Yes.

Are parables historical? No.

When Bible itself or Bible by quoting Jesus' words tell you it's a parable, then it's not a historical fact. When not, by what authority you declare the Bible or part of it is a parable?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

When Bible itself or Bible by quoting Jesus' words tell you it's a parable, then it's not a historical fact. When not, by what authority you declare the Bible or part of it is a parable?

Generally parables are clearly noted, but the point is that something can be true without being historical.

Myth is not a bad word.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Generally parables are clearly noted, but the point is that something can be true without being historical.

Myth is not a bad word.

If TE is true, then you can't draw any conclusion from God took a rib out of Adam and make it into Eve. thus Catholic Church's teaching on marriage and divorce is void.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

If TE is true, then you can't draw any conclusion from God took a rib out of Adam and make it into Eve. thus Catholic Church's teaching on marriage and divorce is void.

No, it isn't. The spiritual truths of human nature are true regardless of how they came to be.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

No, it isn't. The spiritual truths of human nature are true regardless of how they came to be.

There're only 2 valid ways to prove a conclusion wrong: 1. the logic is wrong 2. evidence or assumption is wrong. marriage/divorce belong to the later.

You like science and this is science.

 

[ebia]

There're only 2 valid ways to prove a conclusion wrong: 1. the logic is wrong 2. evidence or assumption is wrong. marriage/divorce belong to the later.

You are incorrect. Neither of those prove a conclusion is wrong. They refute the reasoning that arrived at the conclusion, but they do not prove the conclusion is wrong.

There are, however, a variety of ways to prove a conclusion wrong. And if the conclusion is wrong and it is a result of deductive reasoning then either the logic must have been wrong, or the evidence must have been wrong.

To cut a long story short, you've got the whole thing backwards.

You like science and this is science.

No. It's logic. Logic is a tool that science uses, but using logic doesn't make it science any more than my using a spanner makes me a plumber.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

There're only 2 valid ways to prove a conclusion wrong: 1. the logic is wrong 2. evidence or assumption is wrong. marriage/divorce belong to the later.

You like science and this is science.

I don't know how to explain this better if you don't understand how a myth can teach truth.

 

[artybloke]

When not, by what authority you declare the Bible or part of it is a parable?

By what authority do you declare the Bible or part of it factual?

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

You are incorrect. Neither of those prove a conclusion is wrong. They refute the reasoning that arrived at the conclusion, but they do not prove the conclusion is wrong.

There are, however, a variety of ways to prove a conclusion wrong. And if the conclusion is wrong and it is a result of deductive reasoning then either the logic must have been wrong, or the evidence must have been wrong.

You still haven't shown me how to prove a conclusion wrong other than the 2 method. evidence + logic = conclusion. what else?
again don't make empty claims without supporting evidence.

To cut a long story short, you've got the whole thing backwards.



No. It's logic. Logic is a tool that science uses, but using logic doesn't make it science any more than my using a spanner makes me a plumber.

You're confused here. logic is the foundation of science. anything logically wrong can't be factually right. "Can God make a stone he can't lift" it's not God who isn't omnipotent but because you asked a logically wrong question.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

I don't know how to explain this better if you don't understand how a myth can teach truth.

If you think God isn't trying to teach truth in Genesis, I don't know what to say.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

By what authority do you declare the Bible or part of it factual?

By God is love and He doesn't want us to misunderstand Him

 

[chaoschristian]

anything logically wrong can't be factually right

Premise 1: My dog has a nose
Premise 2: I like milk and sugar in my coffee
Conclusion: The Empire State Building is the tallest in New York City

Both the premises and the conclusion are factually correct. The logic, however, is not sound.

Next.

 

[chaoschristian]

By God is love and He doesn't want us to misunderstand Him

Amen, you are correct. And that is why He gave us the witness of the Bible, the witness of His Creation, and the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit to help us to discern the truth that both reveal.