Skip to comments.What Is Science?
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?
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 youre 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?
So is it correct to conclude that if one does not adhere to the literal truth of the bible then one is not a Christian?
If you don’t have an answer say so but a question on something else is not an answer.
“What aspect of Christianity does evolution conflict with?”
Genesis. Although Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 conflict with each other as well.
Christianity is not defined by Genesis.
No, they don't. They just fill in some detail from Chapter One.
Genesis 2 paraphrased. God found Adam lonely with companion so he created animals and brought them each before Adam to 'evaluate' as companions. Finding animals lacking for Adam, God created Eve. Why didn't God know that Adam was needing an Eve and create her at the same time as Adam instead of putting Adam through torture? What lesson was God providing in this?
If you dont have an answer say so statement about an earlier post is not an answer.
Where do you get that God was torturing Adam by having him name the animals and showing him that they didn’t provide for him adequate companionship?
And simultaneously highlighting the difference between human design and design via descent with modification.
We already have a working theory that explains the history of life. If you intend to replace or supplement that theory, you need to provide something new that can be tested.
So far, claims that certain complex mechanisms could not have evolved incrementally have been whittled away. There rather impressive news on the flagellum developed recently. Seems there are lots of partial flagella in living organisms when you start looking for them.
The biggest flaw in ID is that it doesn't suggest looking for them.
If you wish to carry Buck’s water foe him perhaps your moniker should be CarryWater instead of ColdWater.
The essence of ID:
1. Life on earth originated billions of years ago in a pond of scum.
2. Man evolved from this early life over a span of hundreds of millions of years.
3. God may be dead since there is no evidence of his existence over the last few hundred million years.
Uh, trying out all the animial to see if they could suit him was NOT torture? Imagine being presented with millions of animals, one by one and, uh ... , never mind.
“No, they don’t. They just fill in some detail from Chapter One.”
In Gen 1 Animals are made a day before man. In Gen 2 they are made after man.
If you don't want to or can't answer the question just say so. Don't jump on me!
God knew that Adam was needing Eve. How do you expect someone to be able to answer you seriously when you start with false premises like that?
Operational science in biology is based upon the theory, and the theory of creating useful features from random generation of genetic diversity is used to create novel enzymes for industrial functions.
Nobody is stopping Creationists from doing their thing. Unfortunately their “thing” is mostly pretzel work apologetics, laughable PR releases, and a “critique” of real scientists doing real science.
Biology has never been a more productive field in terms of research and application (industry, food, medicine), NONE of it from Creationist universities. Not many test tubes in Dr. Dino's basement.
“Uh, trying out all the animial to see if they could suit him was NOT torture? Imagine being presented with millions of animals, one by one and, uh ... , never mind.”
I wonder why god didn’t already know what would please Adam?
Oh I remember, its a myth from bronze aged Nomads.
“The biggest flaw in ID is that it doesn’t suggest looking for them. “
I sometimes refer to ID as “educated surrender”.
Then why was Adam presented all the animals first? What was the moral to that story?
Except for the education part.
“If you wish to carry Bucks water foe him perhaps your moniker should be CarryWater instead of ColdWater.”
That’s really uncalled for.
Education does not imply wisdom or intelligence!
What do you mean, *trying out all the animial to see if they could suit him*? Trying them out how?
Why do you say *all* the animals? The Bible doesn’t say that Adam named ALL the animals on the planet.
How do you know how many God presented to Adam? Or are you just ASSuming that as well?
Hey, noob. What was your previous screen name?
>God knew that Adam was needing Eve. How do you expect someone to be able to answer you seriously when you start with false premises like that?<
That’s not how the Bible reads. God says he will make a helper fit for him and “Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast ... But, for Adam there was not a helper fit for him.”
Obviously, either God didn’t know what was a fit helper or he was teaching Adam a lesson. Which?
18 Then the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for  him. 19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed  every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam  there was not found a helper fit for him.
Something scientists could well learn.
They're one on the most arrogant bunch of people around because of it.
“Hey, noob. What was your previous screen name?”
I don’t post here usually. LP mostly, but that site is off the deep end right now. I’m Rhino on LP.
You had better read your Bible!
Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed  every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field.
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.