Skip to comments.Science Becoming a Religion
Posted on 06/10/2007 6:38:21 PM PDT by kathsua
click here to read article
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.
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.)
[We do deal with “how these organizms lived and died,their diet, environment, social structure, culture,” but it is humans and human cultures we are dealing with, not fossils.]
By watchign video cassettes of them in action no doubt— als by reading newspapaers that are dated about 66 million years old which show pictures of dinos and macro-evolving oprganisms- after all [And, that science is verifiable, which divine revelation is not.] Yup- no assumptions whatsoever- just verify evolution by watching millions year old Videos.
Believe what you want, but don’t call it science.
What is the point of arguing belief? People will believe what they want. If their belief is strong enough, no logic or proof will shake it. In many instances the strength of their belief is viewed as a virtue. This is a good thing or a bad thing, depending on which side of the discussion you’re on.
oh wait, and don’t forget the 60 million year old eyewitnesses that can verify all the hypothesis of evolution. You know, those faolks that witnessed wolves taking to the sea, lizards leaping into the air and hten later developing wings because of the ‘need’ to feed in an environment other than the ground etc etc. Yup- Plenty of investigating reporters were on the scene back then witnessing actual events as they unfolded.
You see folks- Evo scientists are allowed to look at old bones, make up some elaborate story, and call it science- However, ID’ers aren’t allowed to point out factual design in nature- point to the many instances of it, point out that it is irreducibly complex, without being accused of infering *gasp* that there might just perhaps be a disigner behind the design. Harumph... Why that thar is religion! Psuedo-science-Apologetics!
and what kind of logic ignores biological impossibilities, and tries to brush aside specific complexities, and ignores mathematical impossibilities? There is plenty of logic to strengthen faith IF one isn’t adverse to throwing off the dogma embroidered blinders.
One of the beauties of faith is that it asks to make the jump beyond logic.
And here's the crux of the issue. Many scientists are not encouraging questioning of their belief in Macroevolution.
They are being hypocrites because they need Macroevolution to support their religion (see worldview), and will defend it tooth and nail dogmatically and with zeal.
At least Creationists accept that religion/worldview is a component of why they support Creationism. Macroevolutionists should be so forthcoming.
If you apply the same criteria to faith as you do to science, then the faith dies. And that is not a good thing.
Prediction before reading beyond comment 1: at least a few Macroevolutionists are going to make snide comments about the religion/relgion typo and Creationists' intelligence.
A big thing is, that science can almost completely function without even delving into origins. There's little reason on a scientific level for why Macroevolutionists are willing to fight so irrationally hard on this issue to the point where it becomes blindly obvious that Macroevolution has become for them an article of faith.
P.S. Personal opinion is that bringing global warming/climate change into this isn't good for 'the cause.'
“Evolution is anti-God. Nothing real about it.
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.”
Amen to people wising up to the fact that Scripture is irrelevant and incorrect and quaint !
Here it is again (not intending to mudsling you, just this very common comment).
Science and Macroevolution are not interchangable. At most, Macroevolutionists would believe that Macroevolution is a tiny subset of science, particularly in the biology and astronomy fields.
“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.”
Nice try, but incorrect. The creation myth in Genesis does not pertain only to “our own local environment.” In Genesis 1, the Earth was created with the rest of the universe on Day One, even before light was created and the distinction between night and day. The “sky” was created on Day Two, and the sun and the moon on the fourth day. The whole thing is pretty whacky.
No it wasn't,...in fact, it goes out of it's way tell you exactly the opposite.
Here's the relevant passages
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
The key phrase here is: without form, and void. It's long been known by philosophers that a thing has two basic and essential qualities:
1...its shape, or structure.
2...and its substance
Genesis 1 tells us the the earth was without both of these in the beginning of creation. The fact that it simply mentions does not mean the exact opposite. That would be ludicrous.
In fact, given that Genesis 1 does comment on such clear, philosophical logic, it makes the notion that it was invented by ignorant bronze age goat herders all the more absurd.
Sorry for the few syntax errors in my last post....it’s late, and I’m tired.
stormer, your comment (to which 138 is a response) can just as easily be leveled at Macroevolutionists. Actually, at face value, it seemed that you were referring to Macroevolutionists, but see that you are one of them.
There can be light without the Sun and stars. A hint of this, is that for the new Earth, there won't be a Sun. God will be the light.
And you point out that the order of creation in the Bible does not fit into the Macroevolutionist model. While disagree that this constitutes 'whackiness,' agree that this just goes to show for the Christian Macroevolutionists out there that the Bible and Macroevolution aren't reconcilable. It comes down to who is more trustworthy, Man or God?
Was going to add to the earlier post to you: it just goes to show how similar in their opinions Creationists and Macroevolutionists are—if one is being religious/dogmatic/zealous, then so is the other.
You prefer to believe things you do not understand? It ain't real easy to see the wisdom in that.
And that's arrogance and pridefulness to deny the supernatural - you think man is supreme and nothing is above it. Since you can't understand how it happens then it's an impossibility to you.
Not impossible. Unproven. Unsupported by evidence. There are a great many things I don't understand, and I consider myself a pretty smart guy. But lay it out for me, and the odds are pretty good I'll be able to follow.
Editorial suggestion: Your sentence fragment has an unneeded word. "Thinking" would suffice.
Since you deny the supernatural Awesomeness of God
Like, the supernatural Awesomeness? Dude. Are you quoting from the Gospel according to Keanu?
On the contrary, sir. I have witnessed the supernatural,
When, where and how? Because unless you have more senses beyond the customary five, anything you can witness is by definition natural. Light hits your retinas, sound enters your ears, warm or cold or pressure or pain reaches your nerve endings in the skin, and chemicals reach your tongue or nostrils.
Don’t be a dufus. You know liberal/scientists today already have the answers and are only looking for evidence to support that answer (and also get some gov’t funding along the way). Man made global warming, darwinism and experiments on unborn babies are just a few examples.
Is this like turtles all the way down? There's a designer for the designer for the designer for the designer. . . If everything "designed" needs a designer, who designed God?
You know, those faolks that witnessed wolves taking to the sea,
This is not proposed by evolutionists.
lizards leaping into the air and hten later developing wings because of the need to feed in an environment other than the ground etc etc.
Again, not proposed by evolutionists. Evolution does not come about because of need. It is the result of multiple small changes occurring by chance and being selected for because they are useful, although they might not have the same use millions of years down the road.
Yes, you are arrogant, saying that I’m not anti-science because in my ignorance I don’t even know what science is.
In my 40 years on earth, I’ve earned two bachelor’s degrees and two master’s degrees, earning a staight 4.0 in grad school. I tell you that so that you understand that I am not ignorant. Your assumptions about me, and about those who believe Scripture to be true (and that therefore evolution is not true), is wrong.
“How far wrong am I, really?” You are so arrogant, you don’t even realize how arrogant you are.
Do you ever wonder why you expend so much energy resisting God? Do you ever wonder why with your reason you denounce the One who gives meaning? Do you ever wonder why you even try to find meaning if your presumption is that ultimately no meaning exists?
It's perfectly possible to be knowledgable about some things and ignorant about others. For instance, my opinion on Chinese poetry isn't worth a plugged nickle.
I can’t remember which, but we have a state public official in Georgia that subscribes to that philosophy.