I, as a Christian, have the utmost respect for the faithful who adhere to the literal truth of the Bible.
I have none for those of little faith who choose to rationalize Biblical verse via creationism.
You are among the latter.
One last question: if creationism is science, what findings might you accept as falsification of creation? As you know, falsification is a key element of the scientific method.
I, as a Christian, have the utmost respect for the faithful who adhere to the literal truth of the Bible.
******************************************************************
Obviously you do not. Christ reminded us to believe the words of Moses. Christians believe the words of Christ. I believe the words of Christ and of Moses, and you do not respect me because I dare to challenge your faith in the pseudo-science of evolutionism.
************************************
I have none for those of little faith who choose to rationalize Biblical verse via creationism.
******************************************************************
Are you claiming that the great scientists who believed the Word of God, such as Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, and James Maxwell were rationalizing the Bible? That is the silliest thing I have ever read.
************************************
You are among the latter.
******************************************************************
Your sanctimonious attitude is not a rational defense for your faith in the doctrine of the anti-Christian “theologian” named Charlie Darwin, and that of the slick, Moses-hating lawyer named Charlie Lyell, over the Word of God. The only rational defense for your faith is scientific evidence for common descent, which you cannot provide.
Mr. Kalamata
Evolutionists come up with some of the goofiest theories imaginable, one of which was the notion of “Junk DNA”. This is “theistic” evolutionist Francis Collins in his 2007 book, “The Language of God”, discussing “Junk DNA”:
“Some of these [”Junk DNA”] may have been lost in one species or the other, but many of them remain in a position that is most consistent with their having arrived in the genome of a common mammalian ancestor, and having been carried along ever since. Of course, some might argue that these are actually functional elements placed there by the Creator for a good reason, and our discounting of them as “junk DNA” just betrays our current level of ignorance. And indeed, some small fraction of them may play important regulatory roles. But certain examples severely strain the credulity of that explanation.” [Collins, Francis S., “The Language of God.” Free Press, 2007, Chap.5, p.136]
A mere 8 years later, Collins had completely changed his tune, as reported in the New York Times:
“In January, Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, made a comment that revealed just how far the consensus has moved. At a health care conference in San Francisco, an audience member asked him about junk DNA. “We don’t use that term anymore,” Collins replied. “It was pretty much a case of hubris to imagine that we could dispense with any part of the genome — as if we knew enough to say it wasn’t functional.” Most of the DNA that scientists once thought was just taking up space in the genome, Collins said, “turns out to be doing stuff.”” [Zimmer, Carl, “Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?” New York Times, March 5, 2015]
Perhaps a better question to ask Collins would have been, “How on earth could you believe such silliness in the first place?”
Mr. Kalamata
“As you know, falsification is a key element of the scientific method.”
To be sure by observation and limited experimentation but there will always be an epistemological gap between knowledge of an object and the object itself. We are all stuck in the end between the tension points of reason and faith.
The tautological arguments that you are accusing Mr. Kalamata of foisting, true, can’t be rationalized and or falsified(proven empirically true!) by means of reason or the scientific method but they can’t be said to be non-rational or non-falsifiable(proven empirically false). Especially, since you espouse a type of hybrid creationistic-darwinistic theology to bash him over the head with. Your arguments, too, are tautological in nature and can’t be supported by the scientific method as you hold to the existence of a creator being!
Since you both already state you both believe in a Creator Being, something the scientific method in it’s basic granular practice cannot support due to the tautological nature of the concept, scientifically speaking, you too BWEST have no firm ground to stand on if you wish to continue to cite the scientific method as an ally.
It is a sign of prideful pre-bias, and not faithful to reason or the scientific method to suggest that a line of reasoning that cannot be immediately falsified or verified must be automatically disregarded as “not true”!( and indeed have attached to such reasoning very bogoted scorn and ridicule and even leading to the destruction of one’s life’s work, reputation and character, even if such a person so ostracized has done many wonderful works of science and technology, ie.E. Forrest Mimms)
Science can’t answer the question of the numbers of angels on a pin but it can’t say that it never happens, that such never exist. It can’t say such a concept is true or false; only the biases fueled by sociopathic caustic skepticism would lead such a person to arbitrarily pronounce such beliefs as “empirically false” while belittling the faith of another Christian as you did with Mr. Kalamata!