YECist's tragically weak view of God

[chris777]

No where in my post did I say science was perfect.

This one little sentece is going to be tricky , as it leads into a great deal of the issue, but here goes
in a reply to chief you stated:

I have yet to see anyone going from TE->Creationist actually understand evolution. For example, most Creationists say they use to believe evolution. You don't believe in a theory, you accept it based on the evidence. Until I find a TE->Creationist that can correctly give me the scientific definition of a transitional fossil and then explain why none exist, I will continue to believe that no Creationist actually understand evolution. (Go ahead and try, no Creationist has ever done this).

I have several elaborations on this . First you stated this in such a manner that unless the anwser is given to you in the exact manner you demand then you are unwilling to listen to it.
If, you do not hold science as the" do all end all, be all" method of communication, or debate, then, Why is no other explanation acceptable to you?
Much like the manner you claim that creationist do.
I never claimed you stated science was perfect, But I will say I think you hold to it like you would a wife, "omitting her imperfections" and singing her praises.
Or maby a better analogy would be a classic car, that has seen better days, that You (as well as all the other scientist you keep refering to ) are continually tuning up, and patching, much in the way you keep stating about your supposed not viewing science as perfect.
another quote to demonstrate

In fact, you quoted me saying that the may be problems with the theory and it must be refined. If I though science was perfect, why would I also say that evolution is continually being updated. Not only that, if you look through my history, you'll constantly find me posting that science is nothing more than a tool for studying the natural world. .

Yes after re reading this I do think the "tuner" car is the better analogy, in that You are devoted and commited to working on it, and it will always be a project, a "work in progress"
Perfectionist are never satisfied, and if you want to know how I would know that then you need to hand me a mirror, and ask me what I see in it.

This seems very dishonest, but on par for being a Creationist

See you have been so defensive and rejecting of what I am attempting to show you that you assume that my replies and statements were done in the form of insult or attack, When my purpose is to try to get you to reflect on these things from another perspective, you love science so much what can you tell me about a frame of reference and observation?

While i am thinking about it, I am not a creationist, and I do not believe in creation science, (or you could toss in accept where I stated believe as I am about to explain)

This is why scientists tend to not listen to the general public, since they only seem to hold back science.

This is another flaw of science, it ask so many questions yet never looks upon itself and ask whether or not it should.
a wise man once said in

Luke 14
26] If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
[27] And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
[28] For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?
[29] Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
[30] Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
[31] Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?
[32] Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.
[33] So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
[34] Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?
[35] It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Science is reckless, and is in far too many cases careless, and inconsiderate of consequences, and much as stated in your own reply rebellious (how many scientist have you heard in the past year alone that have broken the law in the name of scientific "progress") Rebellion is Not a value of someone who should be obedient.

Science is a tool, and it is not the only way to gain information. However, until you figure out how to supernatural or why including the supernatural would improve science, science will be perfectly content to continue to study the natural world.

Like I tried saying in another post, Is a miracle still a miracle if you know how it is done?
Perhaps I should go a step further, and ask in a manner that will cause some to question which is true.
The Bible speaks of how Jesus Fed the masses with mere scraps. Now I have seen many modern so called "scientific" explanations for many biblical miracles even how Jesus walked on water, But I ask you and anyone else who cares to respond, how can science explain where he pulled tangable (and edible) matter completely and totally out of thin air?

It seems if anything, you continue to fail to understand science. Facts are observations.

The problem Is many of the Facts used in science take dinosaurs for example are not observations, but extrapolations from current living animals, therefore it is NOT in fact an observation.

Evolution (change of allele frequencies over generations) can be observed.

I call it the "shuffeling" of the genetic deck

Evolution is also a theory
(selection+mutation drive the observation).

acording to your fact/theory statement some post back
it is an observation highly influenced, antd therefore tainted by a pre concieved expectation as to what the results will be.

 

[chris777]

I think I forgot to post these definitions to demonstrate the similarities between acceptance, and belief, and yes they are synonyms in many cases

accept
1 a : to receive willingly <accept a gift> b : to be able or designed to take or hold (something applied or added) <a surface that will not accept ink>
2 : to give admittance or approval to <accept her as one of the group>
3 a : to endure without protest or reaction <accept poor living conditions> b : to regard as proper, normal, or inevitable ****e idea is widely accepted> c : to recognize as true : BELIEVE <refused to accept the explanation>
4 a : to make a favorable response to <accept an offer> b : to agree to undertake (a responsibility) <accept a job>
5 : to assume an obligation to pay; also : to take in payment <we don't accept personal checks>
6 : to receive (a legislative report) officially
intransitive verb : to receive favorably something offered -- usually used with of <a heart more disposed to accept of his -- Jane Austen>

__________________________________________________________________
believe;
1 a : to have a firm religious faith b : to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>
2 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>
3 : to hold an opinion : THINK <I believe so> transitive verb
1 a : to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports> <you wouldn't believe how long it took> b : to accept the word or evidence of <I believe you> <couldn't believe my ears>
2 : to hold as an opinion : SUPPOSE <I believe it will rain soon>

 

[chris777]

The basic flaw of the scientific method is that it assumes a reality without God. It should not be surprising if one then ends up with theories that exclude Him from actively working.

the problem is that this is simply not true.

How about as you state later in this post, it (science)
Ignors things, a great many of them.

or instance, today's sermon at church was on John 5.
there is a problematic verse at:

Jhn 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

how would you show that an angel "troubled the waters?"
if you showed scientifically that the water's turbulence was due to a air bubble released from a crack deep in the earth, would you eliminate "angel troubling the water" as a primary cause?

You just broached upon my miracle question.

science does not eliminate God from any explanation.
it simply doesn't know how to include God or angels in science, and as a result doesn't want to try to force them into the science

or green pixies or woodland sprits

If any of these do, or ever existed I would call them demons,
otherwise it does go along with the original posters assertation that Science, assumes reality without God, or any other "spiritual" forces. See by ignoring the possibility, it is also ignoring one of the possible explanations it seeks. I realize that much of it is done in the attempt to legitimize it. As I obviously do not believe that many false religions, or myths are true. But by science ignoring the possibility it basically defines by exclusion all religion as myth, or hoax.

the interesting thing is neither do you. tell me how to show to an impartial observer that "an angel troubled the waters" when they can not see this angel, nothing can detect the angel etc etc.

Why do you have to "show " them?
Thats part of the problem is that science seems to focus on a particular aspect of an event, and focus on that excluding many other things , and "misses the whole point"

what is interesting is that science did this "silence about God and supernatural talk" long before any but a very few scientists were anything in the west but Christians. Christians themselves realized that to try to keep science as a branch of natural theology was fruitless in the near term because no one could agree on the first cause for phenomena. So essentially they agreed not to talk about
Aristotelian primary or first causes like God but concentrate on secondary naturalistic causes that everyone could agree on and see.

And thus you reveal another flaw in that it makes presumptions without all of the evidence. I don't know how many atheist I have debated , that Just don't care about the origin of life itself, as long as they can proudly proclaim that evolution proves the bible is false, because the scriptures do not match what they propose.
I myself figured out that neither did many of their origins theories, but they dont care they have built their evolutionary house like a sand castle on the beach.

in an analogous manner to the disestablishment of denominations from the Federal US government and the break with an established state church from Europe was achieved because Christians did not want another denomination to capture the commanding heights of the Federal government, Christians argued for the naturalistic explanations because they were all too aware of the divisiveness of God-talk.

Many so called christian "founders" were freemasons, and secularist. I distain the sugar coating of proven history ,(and I would call letters fairly good proof of someones true thoughts and feelings) to try and make it sound like this country has divine mandate.
If jesus had no place to lie his head why would his followers?

But try an experiment, explain how you would show "angel troubleing the water at the pool of Bethesda".
science is silent either for or against the existence of the supernatural, it doesn't eliminate God from science, it just does not know how, nor desire to try to introduce supernatural talk into the domain. the interesting thing is neither do you, if you did then you could apply those common principles and convince everyone that your theology is correct, since no one interpretation of Christian theology is overwhelming accepted, then supernatural talk is not intersubjective but rather very subjective and the evidence is not convincing.

I don't agree with "christian science"
Science is too steeped in philosophy, sure there are some similarities, on the surface, but deep comparison of scripture, with the "great philosophers" of antiqioty reveals many diametric differences.
I call it leaven

when the Church can convince itself of a single theology, then i will be glad to listen to how it could use this technique to broaden science to theistic science, but until that day, science as methodological materialism and naturalism is apparently the best us poor human beings will manage.

Which is why I don;t understand the embelishment of it, the laying it on of all our so called "scientific " accomplishments, Face it science has acomplished nothing in comparison to God

until that time the division and divisiness of Theology convinces me that the attempt even to try to create a theistic science is a fools errand. sadly so, i really appreciate Abraham Kuyper's desire and passion to build a 2nd science, but it seems well beyond our grasp.

You had to give me a name to look up that I am actually curious about.

And Again I reiterate, I distain the "compromise" of attempting to "scientifify" scripture, and to "biblify" science.
Now granted , I have not see nany scripture Science has "disproven" Except scripture from false religions like Islam
But that doesnt mean I buy into everything science professes either, I do find it fery cult like in its methodology, doctrines, and function.

 

[chris777]

I am open to possibility that the theory of evolution is not correct, and that there's some other explanation. However, the only alternative I'm aware of is creationism, all the evidence I've seen points towards evolution.

If sufficient evidence appeared, then changing my position would be a possibility.

I personally follow a scriptural account vs "creationism" as I feel it is to osteeped in scientific reasoning and mentality, plus it too is attempting to divorce itself from the scripture.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

otherwise it does go along with the original posters assertation that Science, assumes reality without God, or any other "spiritual" forces. See by ignoring the possibility, it is also ignoring one of the possible explanations it seeks. I realize that much of it is done in the attempt to legitimize it. As I obviously do not believe that many false religions, or myths are true. But by science ignoring the possibility it basically defines by exclusion all religion as myth, or hoax.



science doesn't ignore God or the supernatural. To ignore something means that you see it and refuse to acknowledge it's existence.


Science can't see the supernatural. It can't see God, nor the pink elephant sitting in my easy chair. Silence is not the same thing as ignoring, God is outside the domain that science looks at. Whether or not He exists is not a scientific question.


it's domain is a truncated universe, only the universe accessible to it's tools. it's tools are (among lots of others) induction and methodological naturalism, induction never makes an exhaustive or sufficient claim, it can't for it can never "prove" that it has seen all the examples or cases.

 

[chris777]

Same here.

Actually, the scientific method assumes a reality, but does not assume a God. Big difference.

Gotta love how people make my points for me, it makes assumptions. (and again I advise people to read those last 3 words and chew them up before swallowing them and forgetting (dismissing)

A theory which includes God actively working (i.e. Creationism) assumes Him, but leaves reality highly questionable... and that just won't work, because a theory needs to have some sort of ability to make predictions.

I distain creationism, its like it is trying to legitimise the holy scripture by wrapping it up in the guyse of science, thus paganizing the scripture
as for prediction, forecasting was a sin in the OT in that it was divination. (again don't just get all huffy thinking I am being insulting, and carefully loo kat what was said, and for that matter look into it a bit)

Glorious, yes, but can we make predictions? Can we perfrom experiments? Can we ever set up a "Control" condition where God does not intervene?

looks like my above comment really belongs here

I've never seen anyone refer to science as "perfect." But the best part about it is that it is self-correcting... when it is wrong, it contains within itself the means to fix its own problem.

Its not perfect, but it seeks perfection., and in its quest, it presumes, it can make itself perfect.
(again read what both of us said, and ponder it)

Higher than what?

it is highly esteemed

So...science is fallible, but our understanding of Scripture is not?

Which would you rather defend the faith or science?

Hopefully you'll not make the same mistake... I would love to see some positive evidence for Creationism instead of perceived flaws in evolutionary theory... for a change.
Many such threads have been asked for, but they seem to go nowhere.

This whole thread is new territory for me as all my past evolution debates have been with atheist ,again I ask if some people in the board could clarify their beliefs, or point to a web page that does.

Most likely... but where are they taught that there is no God?

Everywhere but church, 5+ days of government liberalized thought, philosophy, and ways of thinking ,vs 1 in church

But not at the expense of the larger picture.

And what larger picture are you refering to?

 

[chris777]

You seem to be admitting here that you do not understand the Wilson cycle and its relevance to supercontinents. Yet you are so hasty to reject the notion of Pangaea. What sense does that make?

Man you all are so combative, I asked to keep it simple, so that others reading will understand. As for the wilson cycle

Like you, I don't have all day to sit around and translate a 20 page technical document for you into laymen's terms. Instead, I suggest you take the time to educate (not indoctrinate) yourself on the matter so that you can make an educated assessment of the feasibility of supercontinents, rather than just 'hand-waving for Jesus'.

I did try and put it in laymans terms,and asked how my explanaion was, Is it really that difficult to do to , correct my version if it was wrong?
these replies are already fairly lengthy as it is.

Yes, you are wrong. The earth's mantle does not simply act like a wavy sea of magma (in fact, it is nearer to a solid, but has the properties of a liquid over long periods of time). The Wilson cycle speaks of ocean basins opening on one side of the world, and closing on the opposite side of the world. You can see this happening today, for example, with the opening of the Atlantic ocean and the subsequent closing of the Pacific. If this process continues as it has for the last hundreds of millions of years, North America with eventually collide with Asia, creating yet another supercontinent.

Is that not what I said? it still functions as a liquid, in that the continents are adrift, and they (according to the theories) are drifting into each other and merging (, I guess the bouncing part of my comment could be debated)
I might could buy it more(the evolutionary view of pangea spreading genetic "seed" across the globe) if it were speaking about the contintinents still adrift, and when they make contact with each other then animals migrated, but then we get back into the rebound i mentioned ,and I Just dont know if I buy even that.

They are inter-related; not inter-dependent. Geology obviously does not rely on evolutionary biology since not all rocks contain fossils. Plate tectonics do not rely on evolutionary biology because there are several lines of evidence in support of tectonism that are abiological (e.g., ancient glacier deposits, fit of the continents, rate of sea-floor spreading, etc.). Similarly, while evolutionary theory does make use of the fossil record in order to better explain the history of the world's diversity of life, it is also supported by non-geologic evidence like morphological homology and genetics. So no, to answer your question, the above scientific fields you mention are not inter-dependent.

And would they stil lbe inter related, if they disregarded each others scientific findings and evidence?

I am not against the Bible at all. I am against what I see at the YECist perversion of science in order to fit a biblical cosmology that the original authors were not intending to propagate.

another one of those statements that I feel needs to be chewed on more

take when I alter 3 words

I am against what I see at the scientist/TE/atheist perversion of scripture in order to fit a scientific cosmology that the original authors were not intending to propagate.

I am disturbed that so many on here vehamently battle in defense of Science a supposed "tool" yet scripture, and the belief in it is seemingly cast aside, as foolishness, childishness, and ignorance.

 

[chris777]

Could you back this up with evidence? In all my science classes, I have never had a single professor ever teach that there was no God. In fact, I have had over 150 credits of classes (spread over math, science, and computer science) and not a single one of my professors have ever make such a statement. And yes, I go to a secular university. If anything, this sounds like you think that not speaking about God == God doesn't exist. If so, do math classes also disavow God's existence?

You are blessed then, its not that hard to find I live in GA I am sure if you google it, you will find many a heated debate , I had an article fro ma local professor of evolution decrying God, I Will look and see If I can find it online.



Last reply for the night I think Im catchin ga cold, and Im exhausted, and in pain, but who knows If I cant sleep I may come back earlier.

 

[laptoppop]

Wow Chris - lots of posts! Thanks for all that work. You and I agree on much of what you say. I think I'm a bit more willing to let scientific explanations help me to understand more about how God's creation works, and more willing to help folks understand how the global flood left (literally!) big piles of evidence -- but I totally agree that scripture takes precedence. (usual disclaimer: this does NOT mean that I do not recognize that there are passages of scripture where things are described in human terms or poetic language)
Thanks again!

 

[laptoppop]

I am not against the Bible at all. I am against what I see at the YECist perversion of science in order to fit a biblical cosmology that the original authors were not intending to propagate.

another one of those statements that I feel needs to be chewed on more

take when I alter 3 words

I am against what I see at the scientist/TE/atheist perversion of scripture in order to fit a scientific cosmology that the original authors were not intending to propagate.

Well said!

 

[The Lady Kate]

I distain creationism, its like it is trying to legitimise the holy scripture by wrapping it up in the guyse of science, thus paganizing the scripture

Science is a pagan invention?

as for prediction, forecasting was a sin in the OT in that it was divination. (again don't just get all huffy thinking I am being insulting, and carefully loo kat what was said, and for that matter look into it a bit)

You're saying that predictions based on evidence and observation is the same as divination, and as such is prohibited by the Bible?

Its not perfect, but it seeks perfection., and in its quest, it presumes, it can make itself perfect.
(again read what both of us said, and ponder it)

It seeks accuracy. This is a sin?

it is highly esteemed

It has a long proven track record of getting results. It has earned a certain degree of respect.

Which would you rather defend the faith or science?

Who says I can't defend both? There is no conflict between them.

This whole thread is new territory for me as all my past evolution debates have been with atheist ,again I ask if some people in the board could clarify their beliefs, or point to a web page that does.

The bestthing to do would be to lurk on this board and read some threads.... you should get a decent enough idea of the people from that.

Everywhere but church, 5+ days of government liberalized thought, philosophy, and ways of thinking ,vs 1 in church

This sounds paranoid.

And what larger picture are you refering to?

The message of Scripture.... all of it.

 

[Assyrian]

I am not against the Bible at all. I am against what I see at the YECist perversion of science in order to fit a biblical cosmology that the original authors were not intending to propagate.

another one of those statements that I feel needs to be chewed on more

take when I alter 3 words

I am against what I see at the scientist/TE/atheist perversion of scripture in order to fit a scientific cosmology that the original authors were not intending to propagate.

Doesn't quite work I'm afraid.
Mallon's point was that the original authors did not intend to teach cosmology ancient or modern.

If you want to reverse that, you have to claim Genesis was teaching cosmology to the ancient Hebrews and that scientific 'advances' are a perversion of scriptural cosmology.

Geocentrism and Flat Earth anyone?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Geocentrism and Flat Earth anyone?

I'll pass.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Mallon's point was that the original authors did not intend to teach cosmology ancient or modern.


i think that this is both the first and most important distinction to make in the discussion of the ANE basis for the OT.

In order for God to speak to people, He used human language, this language is by necessity embedded in a linguistic-cultural-historical matrix that includes things like where did the stars come from and where does God live.

The problem comes from using these ideas to communicate something else, if the something else is what is important and is the purpose of the communication then the matrix is incidental, necessary as packaging is to get a present to your lover through the mail, but certainly not the present itself.

Likewise if God intended to teach us that He created the heavens and the earth, that the earth is his footstool and the heavens are his great temple, he had to use human metaphors of things that the first hearers were familiar with, hence the metaphors these ideas are wrapped in.

but to ask questions like:
is God's footstool really green or is it blue, which is the dominant color of the earth (earth as land, earth as watery ball) not only misses the point, but elevates the packaging to the same level as the present.

teaching as a timeless, transcultural, truth for all believers or using as a need to communicate is this great and important distinction that i think is primarily missed in the YECist community.

 

[chris777]

The scientific method specifically requires repeatability. It excludes any actions from an interested, loving omnipotent God because they cannot be controlled. It investigates natural processes, not supernatural. As such, it yields results which exclude any workings by God.

is silence about something the same as excluding that something from the conversation?

When the silence is imposed out of fear of "the uneducated masses" or the desire not to argue a point yes.
And it is in many many cases not in fact silent.
Your psychiatric example is a good reference, acording to psychiatry Demons do not exist, yet Christ himself spoke of them, and to them.

consider:
if i never talk to you about the pink elephant who sits on my easy chair when i am not in it, am i telling you that it doesn't exist? in fact, i am silent about this elephant because i am afraid that if i talk about him, he will break my chair deliberately.
however, the psychiarist asked me last week if i had seen a pink elephant in the neighborhood, he explained that there had been a rash of pink elephant sightings on my block and he wanted to know if i had seen him. He was lying of course, seeing pink elephants while on the medicine i take is a common side effect and he was simply making up a sympathic story in order to gain my confidence. So i told him about my pink elephant.
well, i came home from that appointment and the easy chair was broken and unusable, i suppose that the pink elephant had overheard my conversation and deliberately broke it in order to punish me for talking about him.
the problem is that since he broke my chair he has disappeared and i really miss his company.

I assume you either pulled this from a psychiatric journal, or pulled it from a skeptics site as an arguement on the "foolishness of religion"
I almost didn't want to bother quoting it, but I did, not feel like trying to pare it down.

do you really want things like this to move from the pages of psychiatric journals to the pages of biology and chemistry? even if God does stir the waters of the pool at Bethesda, do you think any group of people can agree on the cause and effect relationship if it is not visible to their physical eyes?

Ahh and now we have a tell, You are ashamed of the scriptures , because they appear as foolishness to the masses

do you really want to introduce the divisiveness and subjectiveness of religion back into science? would you like to see university's have competing departments of chemistry? one dedicated to one supernatural cause for covalent binding and another to a different, competing and mutually exclusive one?

Oh I realize that its like a cancer (lukemia) that is so interspread within the entire educational system that it is impossible to remove .
And again I reiterate that much of modern society, particularly the scientific, and "scholarly" and "education" community.
uses an entire mode of thinking, based on the philosophies that inspired science.
For example, (and I admitedly do not know where many of you that I have been conversing with on here stand as TE)
Most of the world is of the mind set that people in general are "basically good" inherently, where as scripture tells us other wise, that we are infact corrupted, and in need of salvation.

Society has permeated the church so much that this line of thought is even seeping into the teachings,

now my easy chair is broken, that is objective, how it got broken, who did it and the cause-effect relationship of the situation is anything but public and objective if you allow pink elephants to be a valid scientific force, even if i am sure that they are. You however are equally sure that they are not and that something is wrong with my perception of them.

And again this is my point you and the test of the TE's straddle the fence, in that you want to play both sides of the field, you are all up in my "face" so to speak in defence of scientificly "enlightened" society, But do you in fact speak in defence of the faith to your agnostic/atheist, colleagues when they attack our faith?

how do we find an objective judge to weigh our two theories?
i and my pink elephant and you with the thought that i really weigh too much for this old chair? science is all about attributing cause and effect in a way that a reasonable person in that field will arrive at the same conclusions.

Yet it seeks to alienate the "commoner" by inventing its own jargon, which it expects everyone else to know, and in so doing preventing any other interpretations from being presented without acknoledging the works that preceded them, even if they may in fact be wrong. Many Designations for scientific terms are used to differentiate them from more commonly used terms, and that is fine, if their is good reason, However in many cases like where I asked about the wilson cycle, (which apparently was not taught until after I got out of school)
There is a n aversion to trying to speak in laymans terms as if it were somehow beneath you. If you do in fact believe the scripture speaks to man in a manner he can comprehend, then why is it you show such distain for trying to "share" your scientific "gospel" . Its as if you look down upon those who do not understand, and while yes I am capable, of doing some of the research myself, and learning along with comprehending many of the concepts (I have had some rather profound thoughts on physics, and understand many concepts, however many of my own ideas were developed seperately, and therefore the terminology is different)
Sorry I ended up deviating off of my own point which was
NOT EVERYONE ELSE on these boards, as well as the world can. If you and I were havin ga discussion in person, and we were talking back and fourth fine use whatever terminology we both comprehend. However the public nature of the boards, plus the supposed desire I assume you have to convert people into "loving" science, and its ways, comes off as egalitatian, of many of the scientific community. And in many cases comes off as a distain for the common man.
Which again i put fourth as yet another example of how scientific thinking is a world view, and a way of thinking, not just observation as many alledge.

do you really want to break science's self imposed silence about God and lose this extraordinary intersubjectivity and substitute for it the unending arguments of religion?

While you as a TE may think you can reconcile the faith with science, The majority of the scientific community, is decidedly atheistic, and at hits motst generous agnostic.
By keeping silent, you are in fact allowing the word of God to be trampled underfoot, by a world that has no concerne for anything other than appeasing itself.

let alone allow my pink elephant to be a valid physics cause for broken chairs.
i can't help thinking that if i never told the doctor about the elephant that i would still have his company and my intact chair.

Again like I did in a previous post all that would have to be done would be exchange God, for your elephant, and you would score another "win" for the atheist, who propose that religion, and particularly christianity is nothing more than their beloved "mental illness"

 

[chris777]

I was fixing the frame on my bike the other day, and I noticed that the bike manual I was using was atheistic. It didn't mention God or encourage me to pray once! Those infidels are sure to go to hell.

and notice your concern for them

 

[Mallon]

Man you all are so combative, I asked to keep it simple, so that others reading will understand.

I'm not being combative at all. It irritates me, however, when you reject evidence out of hand without having first understood it. As much as I'm sure you would like the science of supercontinents put into laymen's terms for the general audience, you seem to be admitting in your previous post a few pages back that you yourself are having a hard time grasping the "snoozefest" papers I alluded to. So why reject them out of hand?

As for the wilson cycle I did try and put it in laymans terms,and asked how my explanaion was, Is it really that difficult to do to , correct my version if it was wrong?

Not at all. That's what I did in my previous reply to you -- correct your erroneous understanding of plate tectonism.

Is that not what I said? it still functions as a liquid, in that the continents are adrift, and they (according to the theories) are drifting into each other and merging (, I guess the bouncing part of my comment could be debated)

No, it is not what you said. There is more to tectonics than simple continental plates floating about randomly on the aesthenosphere. The plates are being physically pushed about from specific loci (like the mid-Atlantic ridge) and pulled down elsewhere (like the Mariana trench). These are the forces that drive continental plates into one another, creating supercontinents; not the wave action of the magmatic mantle, as you suppose. This is why you are wrong.

And would they stil lbe inter related, if they disregarded each others scientific findings and evidence?

Would the sciences of geology, biology, and palaeontology be related if they all disagreed with each other? No. But they don't, so what's your point?
Evolution, in fact, is THE universal theory that makes sense of these three independent fields.

I am against what I see at the scientist/TE/atheist perversion of scripture in order to fit a scientific cosmology that the original authors were not intending to propagate.

Nice try. But your attempt at turning the tables by switching a few of my words doesn't work for the very reason that Assyrian pointed out above. Read it again. The logic doesn't hold. Instead, you seem to be agreeing with me that the ancient Hebrew cosmology isn't scientific, which I doubt you were trying to do.

I am disturbed that so many on here vehamently battle in defense of Science a supposed "tool" yet scripture, and the belief in it is seemingly cast aside, as foolishness, childishness, and ignorance.

Flat-earth geocentrists feel the same way about you!

 

[Mallon]

and notice your concern for them

Why should I be concerned? Who am I to judge whether the bike manual writers are Christian or not?

 

[chris777]

Do I need a good reason to correct falsehoods? Pseudoscience is pseudoscience, and correcting misbelief is an important goal for me as I want to be an educator someday. Part of the reason is because I come from a poor immigrant background (war refugees), but through education, my family has been able to overcome much hardship to start a new successful life here. To see Americans actively hinder education is sickening to me. Not only that, if people think that they must choose between science and religion, how many people will we lose because of this false dictonomy. That's what sites like AiG and ICR promote, either you accept "Godless" science (many Creationists on this site echo this idea) or Creationism.

as I stated earlier I am not a creationist,nor do I agree with their methods.
as for education, Again my concern is that the only viewpoint being expressed in education is what many call scientific, look at where the whole system is heading, it is basically educating the masses so that they can compete in the "rat race".
The problem I have with that is it de values people if they have a disability, or other disadvantage, sure many people are able to over come these things, but the vast majority are not and end up in their menial dead end jobs. We get told our children are being "left behind" But how is it truely freedom, if we are forced into a "competition" , with a country that basically pays slave wages. The mentality is getting more and more like a business, which has many scientifically influenced idealologies, including darwinism.
And as for choosing, again I do not think you are comprehending my point. We cannot love both the world and God.
At some point you are going to die, and you will be forced to let go of your earthly belongings, and accumulations, which includes science. I concede many technical improvements are made, however, at what cost, are they made?
If they are just tools, they should be something you are at least willing to part with , with the realization it is temporary, and not eternal.

If you said a screwdriver is useless, I would also say you're wrong and give some examples, but leave it at that. However, if you say evolution (and science in general) is anti-Biblical, then you are spreading misconceptions about science that may cause people to reject Christianity. This is why I fight strongly for my beliefs.

When I hear you state that scripture is allegorical, I realize that much of it is, however Genesis is never given as an allegory, of creation, and it is certainly not a Myth.
I am un aware of anything contained within genesis that conflicts with what science has "discovered" save evolution.

As for my views on the Bible and faith, that is separate from science. I do believe that Jesus is real, and that He died for our sins, and I believe in the miracle of His Ressurection. It doesn't matter if science has never seen anyone rise from the dead or if later science can bring back the dead because science can never falisfy the act of Ressurection just like science can never falisfy God. I don't need science to prove my faith.

As for my views of Genesis, kenrapoza said it best in his first post, and I agree with him completely.
http://www.christianforums.com/t3309386-genesis-and-truth.html The rest of the Bible follows closely those views. I will never be sure what parts are 100% historical and what parts are myth, but I am sure of one thing: the truths and messages of the Bible are far more important than trying to figure out what part is historical and what part is myth.

Tahts the problem I have with how TE presumes its myth, I am un aware of any parable or allegory, that is not presented seperately in a manner that it is distinguished as an allegory, Whereass Genesis is presented as fact, and the arguement, that the Hebrews, were "not enlightened" enought to comprehend a more elaborate explanation, doesn't jive with all the philosophical debates that existed back then within the Greco/Roman communities that infact believed in some form of evolution.

 

[chris777]

Science is a pagan invention?

Science is derived from many greco roman philosophies, and they were in fact pagans

You're saying that predictions based on evidence and observation is the same as divination, and as such is prohibited by the Bible?

When computer models are used that extend far into the future or past, I would say so, as for divination itself, I was attempting to demonstrated how those ideas and practices have permiated our society as innoculous.

It seeks accuracy. This is a sin?

accuracy is not its only goal

It has a long proven track record of getting results. It has earned a certain degree of respect.

whereas schripture apparently has not?

Who says I can't defend both? There is no conflict between them.

That wasn't the question

The bestthing to do would be to lurk on this board and read some threads.... you should get a decent enough idea of the people from that.

Again with the diversions, its like no one wants to really put themselves out

This sounds paranoid.

I do not see you denying it, if its paranoia, then present some examples of how it is

The message of Scripture.... all of it.

Jesus is the larger picture