Posted on 06/10/2007 6:38:21 PM PDT by kathsua
Empirical science and religion differ in some fundamental ways. Scientists look for questions to ask. Priests (preachers, rabbis, etc) just provide answers.
Science has theories that are subject to change. In 1896, physicists believed that atoms were the smallest particles of matter. A year latter J.J. Thomson overturned this theory by reporting his discovery that atoms were actually comprised of smaller charged particles he called "protons", "electrons" and "neutrons". Later research demonstrated that Thomson's particles were comprised of even smaller particles.
Religion has truths that are to be accepted without question. Those who question these truths may be treated as heretics.
Real scientists encourage questions. They even ask questions about established theories including aspects of the Theory of Relativity and try to find ways these theories might be wrong. Stephan Hawking demonstrated what a real scientist does when he suggested he had been wrong when he suggested that information cannot escape from a black hole. Physicists have a model of the atom they are satisfied with, but that hasn’t stopped them from checking to see if they might have missed something. They are currently colliding heavy nuclei to test the model.
Relgion gets its truths from prophets or dieties. Science has to do things the hard way by conducting repeated observations and experiments. Science cannot verify theories about physical processes that cannot be examined.
Some people who call themselves scientists want science to become a substitute for religion, or at least function more like a religion.. Some believe that science can provide an explanation for events in the distant past that is so accurate it cannot be questioned. Such a claim is illogical because insufficient information is available. For example, those who talk about greenhouse gases state they can precisely determine past temperatures by examining tree rings or ice cores. The width of tree rings depends upon availability of water and the amount of time temperatures are within the range the tree can grow in, not average temperatures. The religious fanatics of the greenhouse gas religion have been accused of practicing censorship of those who disagree with their doctrine.
The subject of the origin of the universe and life on earth has traditionally been the province of religion. Science can only deal effectively with the present. It cannot observe or manipulate the distant past to verify theories. The subject of the origin of the universe and life on earth is interesting and scientific studies of the present might provide useful information, but science cannot provide a definitive answer to the question of how the universe or biological life came to exist. Science can only say what might have happened.
Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the ultimate black hole; nothing would ever bang its way out of that, that would be a final condition.
Likewise having a supposedly omniscient God suddenly 17B years ago deciding it would be cool to create a universe where none had existed previously is nonsensical; why wouldn't he have figured that out 17 trillion or 17 quadrillion years ago.
The long odds are that the universe, like God, is eternal, and the creation stories you read both in the bible and in other antique literature refer to the creation of our own local environment, and not the universe.
It is not considered proper FR etiquette to call other posters fools.
Be that as it may, you post your best argument in favor of creationism and I will provide a rebuttal.
Ground rule--original work, no cut and paste.
Hey, what ever happened with the walls of Jerico? Any body ever dug up those crumbled things?
If evolution has been conclusively disproven, then how do you explain human remains found that are millions of years old and are different than humans in their current form?
I'd like to know exactly what supernatural event or being you witnessed.
Are you going to tell us that the Earth is stationary next?
There seem to be fewer and fewer of us at FR who see that. It is indeed a diabolical way to make people see Scripture as irrelevant and incorrect and quaint.
Ironically, and however opposite your intent, many will read that and suppose you meant that the characterization of evolution as "anti-God" is the "diabolical way to make people see Scripture as irrelevant and incorrect and quaint".
What both of you probably miss is that this way of looking at it is all too plausible. After all you (two) are basically inviting people to reject the Bible and Christianity in total if they happen to find antievolutionary creationism implausible. Heck, you're damn near demanding that they do so.
In fact your premises are shared almost exactly and completely with the most militant and extreme sort of "scientific" atheist. Sure your conclusions differ, but your logic is nearly identical. You ignore (or are oblivious) to the fact that this logic will carry many, and probably far more, in the opposite direction from what you intend.
Of course those that DO manage to reconcile science and scripture, and hang onto their faith after finding out that "creation science" is a crock, will still find you present and now ready to castigate them as enemies of Christ. After all adopting a irenic and humble approach to those with a different understanding of the theological doctrine of creation, and it's relation to secular science, wouldn't allow you the fun of denouncing fellow Christians as dupes of Satan.
So have fun denouncing and renouncing your brothers in Christ. You usually won't get a message like this one. Most of the time we "mockers" will be watching your antics without comment, some smiling and hopefully the better of us shaking our heads sadly.
Thanks for the ping
He knows when you’ve been sleeping,
He knows when you’re awake.
He knows if you’ve been bad or good,
so be good for goodness sake.
Oops - wrong myth.
ping
How arrogant, saying that those who “reconcile science and Scripture” are those who support the contention that “all this” sprang from muck by random chance and that the involvement of God is irrelevant and that it didn’t happen as described by Scripture. You’re implying that those who believe the Scriptural account are anti-science; that we’re illogical. You come right out and say that “’creation science’” is a crock.” Arrogant, whether you recognize it or not.
There are many of us who “reconcile science and Scripture” and who also maintain that God made “all of this” as described in Scripture. Of course, you’re free to agree with the atheists that God is impotent, irrelevant, and a liar. As for me, I’ll believe that Scripture is dependable, and that it’s consistent with the evidence.
As far as I’m concerned, you’re the one quashing people’s faith in the Lord and Scripture. “Shaking our heads sadly” — how proud you must feel to disbelieve God’s Word (and the evidence, I must add).
To deny there is first the metaphysical then the physical is toplay at dumbness for the sake of avoiding instruction. It is the human trait SZatan epxloited in the Garden, so we ought not be surprised when even very intelligent people play the agme thusly. Just be thankful they continue to do the science and leave them be in their chosen state of denial.
No. I'm implying no such thing. What I'm saying (or at least intending to say) quite explicitly is that they have a extremely naive and simplistic understanding of science (and scripture) much like, and of much the same character as, the naive and simplistic views of militant and extreme "scientific" atheists.
I would never say you're anti-science. You have to understand something to some degree in order to oppose it. I don't think you have a sufficient grasp of what science is to be "anti-science". At best (or worst) you're anti-what-you-think-science-is. But what you think science is bears no recognizable relation to the actual thing.
I suppose your perception of mainstream science to be akin to a Lyndon LaRouche follower's perception of mainstream politics: A crazy conspiracy (or mass delusion) in furtherance of a Satanic agenda.
How far wrong am I, really?
As evolution is to Genesis, so Global Warming is to Revelations. I wonder if they'll come up with a replacement for the Gospel...
You're free to call it arrogant. But I by no means came "right out" and said that. This is my conclusion after following the antievolution movement closely for many years. I'm almost certain I've read far more antievolution/creationist literature than you've even seen. I've attended creationist conventions, and meetings of local groups. I've dug for "man prints" alongside creationists down in the Paluxy River.
My opinion that creationism is a crock is a considered one, having extensively (and initially somewhat sympathetically) examined the case for it such as creationists themselves attempt to make it.
I've met many "creationists," but so far only one humble (and wise) fellow who simply accepted creation "as describe in Scripture". Every other creationist has insisted on all manner of nonsense such as vapor canopies, a global flood stacking the geological column, and dozens of other imaginative constructs of which the Bible knows nothing.
For more on this please refer to my previously ignored reply to you on another thread.
Actually I think there is a geocentrist in the thread presently! I'm not going to give the screen name or ping because I don't recall for sure. Anyway we have had at least one or two show up in these threads. Believe it or not! No flat earthers though. (Yet.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.