Posted on 02/19/2009 9:24:24 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
What Is Science?
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."
—Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept. 30, 1999
What You Will Learn
Many people do not realize that science was actually developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe. If the universe is a product of random chance or a group of gods that interfere in the universe, there is really no reason to expect order in nature. Many of the founders of the principle scientific fields, such as Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, were believers in a recently created earth. The idea that science cannot accept a creationist perspective is a denial of scientific history...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
Are you saying that one must adhere to the literal truth of biblical passages to be a Christian?
“When all else fails, accuse the creationists of wanting to burn scientists at the stake.”
I am drawing a parallel with the church of 500 years ago. It is a common rhetorical structure for presenting an argument. Don’t worry, I won’t use allegory. I know that creationists don’t like allegory.
Same difference. Christ is the Word. See the first chapter of John.
Jesus = the Christ, in case you haven't figured that one out yet.
Jesus talked about the creation of Adam and Eve.
Are you saying that he lied about that when He did it?
No. The Bible is allegorical and guides Christians to Christ. It is not Christianity in and of itself.
“Are you saying that he lied about that when He did it?”
Did he lie when he preached with the use of parables?
Any paper dealing with creation or ID will never be accepted for peer review because of the very mentality you are displaying.
Anything that doesn't tow the hardline evo position is by default dismissed as not *real* science and not even given any consideration.
This is another example of evos demanding the impossible by setting up conditions that they know no one can meet and then deriding those who can't meet them for their failure.
Talk about intellectually dishonest.
Can an evo ever answer a question put to them or do they ALWAYS have to create strawman to argue against?
What on earth does your response have to do with the request to provide sources to support your blanket accusation against creationists?
I answered, then posed another question to you. It’s tough being a YEC, I know.
Geocentric how? Model of the solar system or view of the universe?
Which church?
All people? Everywhere?
You know that to be a fact?
There’s only one definition of geocentric—earth at the center. Folks then believed that the sun and all other heavenly bodies circled the earth. They based this belief on their literal reading of the bible. If you beleived differently, bad things would happen to you.
Today, creationints base their belief in a young earth on a literal reading of the bible. See the parallel? As with geocentrism, this, too, will pass.
No, you weren't. You were directly accusing dems of something and making statements about his character.
500 years ago, you would have referred to my position in support of heliocentrism as humanism, and then you would have burned me at the stake. The bad news is that your faith remains as weak today. The good news is that you’re out of matches.
Passing it off as *just a joke* is typical playground bully tactics to blame shift when caught red-handed in a vain attempt to claim innocence and make the other person look bad.
Not buying it.
If the Bible is allegorical, how can you be sure that what it says about Christ is not?
At that point, you’re putting your faith in something that no one can be certain of because no one could possibly know that the real truth is because allegory isn’t the real thing.
Strawman again. I wasn’t talking about His teaching on parables. I was talking about His telling about God creating Adam and Eve.
It is clear that creationists have no capacity for any sort of figurative, parallel, or non-literal usage of any kind. I won’t try to explain it further—the thread remains for future generations to marvel at.
Why not answer the question and provide evidence to support your comments?
What are you, a soliton or dimensio retread?
The allegories become clear as we use the brains that God gave us to figure out his method.
The initial premise must always be that when discussing science, Genesis doesn’t count.
Do you really need evidence to support the fact that geocentrism was all the rage 500 years ago? Really? Any history textbook that covers the period will support it. But then again, creationists don’t like textbooks...
And what’s a soliton? A dimensio?
==Science is the single most productive means humanity has ever come across for gaining useful information about the physical universe.
And the most famous early pioneers in science are almost all creationists.
==Science is based upon the systematic gathering of data on measurable and replicable natural phenomena
If operational science is your criteria, then that rules out Darwin’s fanciful creation myth. However, in the historical sciences, which have no choice by to make historical inferences, creationists and IDers have every bit as much right as the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism to make inferences based on the HISTORICAL evidence.
“What aspect of Christianity does evolution conflict with?”,
The above is, and you still haven't said why I should not respond in the way I did, with Biblical references.
“I asked what aspect of Christianity does evolution conflict with, and you responded with Bible references”.
The question on literalness is another one by its self. So why should I have not responded with Biblical references?
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.