Barabbas Posted December 17, 2012 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 75 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 17, 2012 ....they cannot even hypothetically conceive of evidence disproving their ideas, that's not science, logic, or rational. And these ideas permeate all of their work. It should be clear that they do not divorce their belief from their "science", their science is their belief dressed up in scientific sounding words, and that is not science. Perfect explanation of evolutionary "scientists". Evolution is not science, it's a belief system based on best pre determined guesses. There is no other field of science that compares to this. ....And again we see that it is not science that Christians have a disagreement with, but with a faith system called evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barabbas Posted December 17, 2012 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 75 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 17, 2012 @D-9 At your request I'm trying not to talk about evolution, but ya'll keep bringing it up Whaaa....? At whose request? It's brought up because that is what evolutionists mean by Christians hatin' on science. There is no other science that Christians have a problem with, if I've missed one please point that out. from biology to geology to chemistry to physics to neuroscience to psychology to sociology to cosmology to astronomy Sigh...no you're wrong, these science's are not in conflict with Christianity. You have no evidence to the contrary. but that also means incredibly large portions of modern science from dozens of fields do contradict your beliefs, and that is something you are going to have to live with if you don't want to live in cognitive dissonance. But after repeating this claim, by yourself, and others on this thread there has not been offered one example. Not one. because it has the scientific label on it doesn't mean that it is ultimately true, Finally we can agree on a point Consensus in science...buhahahaha heard that one before. Somehow the magical word "consensus" means we should bow to our betters as to their vast wisdom. It is the mentality of the mob, but it has no place in science. Never has. Not all scientists in any field all agree completely on any position. So the term consensus is a term used to stifle opposition, nothing more. D-9, I would love to debate you on this issue, and take on each, and every one of your assertions. Perhaps a better venue would be the soapbox debate forum. Let me know if you're up to the task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizenship Posted December 17, 2012 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 53 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 24 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/26/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 17, 2012 It really comes down to whether or not you trust the experts of said field, this goes for biology, physics, geology, chemistry, astronomy, history, and archaeology. I'm not an archaeologist or anything, I am not competent to sift through the data on why Jericho is over 10,000. What I know to the best of my ability is that virtually all relevant experts say that Jericho is roughly 11,000 years old and I have no reason to doubt them. I might be wrong, but I think archaeologists get their cues from the multiple settlements of Jericho and the artifacts each settlement has left behind including building and city designs. Well thanks for being honest about that, but what exactly do you think these "experts" base their expertise on? Their own findings? Not by a long shot! Scientists don't just go out into the field, pick up stuff and proclaim "wow, here is some evidence of an old earth, the big band and evolution". Most of what they "know" has been handed over to them by others who teach them how they are supposed to interpret data, and similarly, most of what you and I base our beliefs on is merely an abstraction of information. What is abstracted depends on what the "abstractor" considers relevant in relation to the paradigm he subscribes to. Lets be real here, almost no one on this site backs up anything they say, that includes Christians, and I am not compelled to waste my time tracking down creationist articles to prove my point. I was asked what in science has gone against the Christian faith and I answered. What I presented is, as far as I know, the scientific consensus, and you can either say that you know more science than the scientific consensus or not, that is your choice. Yes it's a statement of faith, but that is how they operate. By definition no evidence will ever show creationism wrong, they cannot even hypothetically conceive of evidence disproving their ideas, that's not science, logic, or rational. And these ideas permeate all of their work. It should be clear that they do not divorce their belief from their "science", their science is their belief dressed up in scientific sounding words, and that is not science. I can see by this that you have the common impression that creationists are so driven by faith that they turn a blind eye to evidence and defiantly interpret everything with a magnifying glass in one hand and a bible in the other. And I can understand that point of view. Quote-mining Ken Ham really makes it sound that way. On the other hand, the conception we have about scientists is that they coldly analyzing evidence and, totally impartial to any primitive and base feelings about how to deal with the facts simply report what they have found. This, if you would pardon the expression is absolute hogwash. Scientists are made of flesh and blood just like you and I and are just as susceptible to faith issues as anyone else. They sit with a magnifying glass in one hand, and the adopted idea that everything we see has been brought about by natural causes, which is nothing more than a statement of faith. If you disagree then show me the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas t Posted December 17, 2012 Group: Senior Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 46 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 944 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 170 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/05/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/20/1980 Share Posted December 17, 2012 there is a huge conflict between science and faith. I wonder why there is any residual doubt about the issue There is no real problem with that, but the two worldviews [...] Good day Viole, as I interpret your lines above, you make out of science a worldview. Stunningly. Now let's have a look what wikipedia has to say about this issue: A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point-of-view, including natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.[1] The term is a calque of the German word Weltanschauung [ˈvɛlt.ʔanˌʃaʊ.ʊŋ] ( listen), composed of Welt ('world') and Anschauung ('view' or 'outlook').[2] It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. What? did I read "emotions"? But Viole, emotions is the thing you mock at.... Just kidding... Weltanschauung (I take the German word, but I am sure you understand the meaning of it, too) is more than science has to offer. So I don't agree with you and the consequences you seem to offer to us. Bye, Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizenship Posted December 17, 2012 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 53 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 24 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/26/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) Science: the speed of light is constant. Not science: therefore the universe is very old. Good. An apparent conflict that does not involve biological evolution. At least we know that evolution is not the only problem here. Now, how is it possible to postulate a young universe if the speed of light is constant? I assume here, taking as a hint the rest of your post, that you believe that the universe is some thousands years old, say 10,000 years old give or take. We know that our galaxy alone containg billions of stars (in the order of 10^11) and that there are billions of galaxies (also in the order of 10^11) in the visible universe only. I make the assumption here that counting stars and galaxies with telescopes is a scientific endeavour If we can see those stars and galaxies, that means that they emitted light. If the universe is 10,000 years old, the time this light needed to reach us cannot be longer than 10,000 years. That is, the whole visible universe is contained in a sphere whith a radium no bigger then 10,000 light years. If we make a small calculation (if the theory of gravitation is science), then we infer immediately that the visible universe should have collapsed under this huge density a long time ago. And nights on earth would be extremely bright (another small calculation valid only if the dependency of star brightness from distance is scientific). Another interesting consequence of the speed of light being constant, is that it must have taken 4.2 years, after creation, to see the second star in the sky. The firmament must have looked pretty boring for thousands of years. If, of course, astronomy and astrophysics can be considered science. Ciao - viole Viole, you have already made a couple of assumptions here. 1) the fact that the speed of light is contstant today means that is has always been constant, and yes, I know there are argument given within the field of physics that are used to make such an assertion, but if a creator has control over the entire universe then I doubt that the laws of physics would have been a problem for him. Therefore, the presupposition that God does not exist must be assumed in order to support your argument. 2) Given the supposition that God created Adam as a complete working system with his heart pumping, blood flowing in his veins, his nervous system sending and receiving signals and so on, then what would have prevented him from creating the entire universe as a complete working system? If God has the ability to create two objects simultaneously then he can create everything simultaneously. Again, a naturalistic explanation must be assumed in order to suport your claims about how telescopes and such invalidate God. In any case, feel free to take the next step and cliam that God creating a young universe is "deceptive"... or whatever.. Edited December 17, 2012 by Citizenship Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Believer112 Posted December 17, 2012 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 39 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 540 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 32 Days Won: 3 Joined: 09/06/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/29/1960 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Science: the speed of light is constant. Not science: therefore the universe is very old. Good. An apparent conflict that does not involve biological evolution. At least we know that evolution is not the only problem here. Now, how is it possible to postulate a young universe if the speed of light is constant? I assume here, taking as a hint the rest of your post, that you believe that the universe is some thousands years old, say 10,000 years old give or take. We know that our galaxy alone containg billions of stars (in the order of 10^11) and that there are billions of galaxies (also in the order of 10^11) in the visible universe only. I make the assumption here that counting stars and galaxies with telescopes is a scientific endeavour If we can see those stars and galaxies, that means that they emitted light. If the universe is 10,000 years old, the time this light needed to reach us cannot be longer than 10,000 years. That is, the whole visible universe is contained in a sphere whith a radium no bigger then 10,000 light years. If we make a small calculation (if the theory of gravitation is science), then we infer immediately that the visible universe should have collapsed under this huge density a long time ago. And nights on earth would be extremely bright (another small calculation valid only if the dependency of star brightness from distance is scientific). Another interesting consequence of the speed of light being constant, is that it must have taken 4.2 years, after creation, to see the second star in the sky. The firmament must have looked pretty boring for thousands of years. If, of course, astronomy and astrophysics can be considered science. Ciao - viole Viole you base your reasoning on the belief of the big bang therory which is assumed. I believe God created the universe as is. Any science about origins is not science it's belief in a bunch of assumtions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizenship Posted December 17, 2012 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 53 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 24 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/26/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 17, 2012 Science: the speed of light is constant. Not science: therefore the universe is very old. Good. An apparent conflict that does not involve biological evolution. At least we know that evolution is not the only problem here. Now, how is it possible to postulate a young universe if the speed of light is constant? I assume here, taking as a hint the rest of your post, that you believe that the universe is some thousands years old, say 10,000 years old give or take. We know that our galaxy alone containg billions of stars (in the order of 10^11) and that there are billions of galaxies (also in the order of 10^11) in the visible universe only. I make the assumption here that counting stars and galaxies with telescopes is a scientific endeavour If we can see those stars and galaxies, that means that they emitted light. If the universe is 10,000 years old, the time this light needed to reach us cannot be longer than 10,000 years. That is, the whole visible universe is contained in a sphere whith a radium no bigger then 10,000 light years. If we make a small calculation (if the theory of gravitation is science), then we infer immediately that the visible universe should have collapsed under this huge density a long time ago. And nights on earth would be extremely bright (another small calculation valid only if the dependency of star brightness from distance is scientific). Another interesting consequence of the speed of light being constant, is that it must have taken 4.2 years, after creation, to see the second star in the sky. The firmament must have looked pretty boring for thousands of years. If, of course, astronomy and astrophysics can be considered science. Ciao - viole Viole, you have already made a couple of assumptions here. 1) the fact that the speed of light is contstant today means that is has always been constant, and yes, I know there are argument given within the field of physics that are used to make such an assertion, but if a creator has control over the entire universe then I doubt that the laws of physics would have been a problem for him. Therefore, the presupposition that God does not exist must be assumed in order to support your argument. 2) Given the supposition that God created Adam as a complete working system with his heart pumping, blood flowing in his veins, his nervous system sending and receiving signals and so on, then what would have prevented him from creating the entire universe as a complete working system? If God has the ability to create two objects simultaneously then he can create everything simultaneously. Again, a naturalistic explanation must be assumed in order to suport your claims about how telescopes and such invalidate God. In any case, feel free to take the next step and cliam that God creating a young universe is "deceptive"... or whatever.. Yes, only naturalistic explanations must be assumed because that is what science is all about, BY DEFINITION. This is just one essential characteristic that defines science: methodological naturalism. That does not prove that a God does not exist, but if you want to put Him into the equation, then you are talking of something else, not science. It is like playing chess. If we admit possible runtime changes in the rules, then we are playing another game, not chess. If we do not like the rigid rules of chess, then we should not play chess. But it makes no sense to say that X and faith are not contradictory when we change X with something completely different. If we can change the definitions, then nothing is contradictory with anything else. Of course, you might not agree that a naturalistic explanation is always available, but the very moment you exclude the existence of naturalistic explanation, you change the rules and make no science, anymore. And that is the main point really. Ciao - viole I know what science is all about, and I don't have a problem with that except when conclusions based on entirely on naturalistic explanations are presented as factual truths when that conclusion cannot be reached. Your very comment exposes a weakness in science in that it cannot assume anything that exists outside of the physical universe. In the event that there is a such a thing as God and that he did in fact create the universe then science would be totally powerless to detect something that actually exists. No matter how much research you invest and how much peer reviewal is done, you will never, ever reach the truth. I am more concerned about that than conforming to the rules of chess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizenship Posted December 17, 2012 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 53 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 24 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/26/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 17, 2012 Science: the speed of light is constant. Not science: therefore the universe is very old. Good. An apparent conflict that does not involve biological evolution. At least we know that evolution is not the only problem here. Now, how is it possible to postulate a young universe if the speed of light is constant? I assume here, taking as a hint the rest of your post, that you believe that the universe is some thousands years old, say 10,000 years old give or take. We know that our galaxy alone containg billions of stars (in the order of 10^11) and that there are billions of galaxies (also in the order of 10^11) in the visible universe only. I make the assumption here that counting stars and galaxies with telescopes is a scientific endeavour If we can see those stars and galaxies, that means that they emitted light. If the universe is 10,000 years old, the time this light needed to reach us cannot be longer than 10,000 years. That is, the whole visible universe is contained in a sphere whith a radium no bigger then 10,000 light years. If we make a small calculation (if the theory of gravitation is science), then we infer immediately that the visible universe should have collapsed under this huge density a long time ago. And nights on earth would be extremely bright (another small calculation valid only if the dependency of star brightness from distance is scientific). Another interesting consequence of the speed of light being constant, is that it must have taken 4.2 years, after creation, to see the second star in the sky. The firmament must have looked pretty boring for thousands of years. If, of course, astronomy and astrophysics can be considered science. Ciao - viole Viole, you have already made a couple of assumptions here. 1) the fact that the speed of light is contstant today means that is has always been constant, and yes, I know there are argument given within the field of physics that are used to make such an assertion, but if a creator has control over the entire universe then I doubt that the laws of physics would have been a problem for him. Therefore, the presupposition that God does not exist must be assumed in order to support your argument. 2) Given the supposition that God created Adam as a complete working system with his heart pumping, blood flowing in his veins, his nervous system sending and receiving signals and so on, then what would have prevented him from creating the entire universe as a complete working system? If God has the ability to create two objects simultaneously then he can create everything simultaneously. Again, a naturalistic explanation must be assumed in order to suport your claims about how telescopes and such invalidate God. In any case, feel free to take the next step and cliam that God creating a young universe is "deceptive"... or whatever.. Yes, only naturalistic explanations must be assumed because that is what science is all about, BY DEFINITION. This is just one essential characteristic that defines science: methodological naturalism. That does not prove that a God does not exist, but if you want to put Him into the equation, then you are talking of something else, not science. It is like playing chess. If we admit possible runtime changes in the rules, then we are playing another game, not chess. If we do not like the rigid rules of chess, then we should not play chess. But it makes no sense to say that X and faith are not contradictory when we change X with something completely different. If we can change the definitions, then nothing is contradictory with anything else. Of course, you might not agree that a naturalistic explanation is always available, but the very moment you exclude the existence of naturalistic explanation, you change the rules and make no science, anymore. And that is the main point really. Ciao - viole I know what science is all about, and I don't have a problem with that except when conclusions based on entirely on naturalistic explanations are presented as factual truths when that conclusion cannot be reached. Your very comment exposes a weakness in science in that it cannot assume anything that exists outside of the physical universe. In the event that there is a such a thing as God and that he did in fact create the universe then science would be totally powerless to detect something that actually exists. No matter how much research you invest and how much peer reviewal is done, you will never, ever reach the truth. I am more concerned about that than conforming to the rules of chess. What can I say? I agree. I am the first who claims that methodological naturalism is equivalent to the metaphysical one, and I have real huge problems to understant evolutionary theism, just to make an example.in that, I agree with the cerationists, obviously. But this is the point of the OP, isn't it? If science follows methodological naturalism, then it is forced, by this methodological rule, to analyze all existence under the microscope of naturalism. Therefore, we cannot remove so easily the "vs." from "science vs. faith". Ciao - viole You can only use the "vs." in cases where real science, i.e. observable, testable and repeatable science, contradicts faith. So far I have seen nothing that meets that criteria. I also think it is astonishing that atheists try to use this argument in order to shut creationists up about "science". The fact is that the attemp to remove God from the equation is just as prone to be religiously motivated as anything else. There is no scientific evidence that the universe was created by naturalistic processes, so why should imagined concepts (as long as they have nothing to do with a designer) be considered science? If God exists, and he has the power to create and manipulate the natural universe then it would be utter stupidity to exclude him from science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizenship Posted December 18, 2012 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 53 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 24 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/26/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 18, 2012 There certainly has been a lot of observations documented by previous scientists, that is kind of how science works, you have the previous generations of knowledge and you try to build on that. While scientists today aren't trying to prove an old Earth or evolution, it's not like a scientist would be completely dumbfounded if you asked them the evidence for such things - provided you're talking about something relevant to their field. I agree interpretation has a lot to do with it, that is how science works, whatever theory best interprets the data and makes the best predictions wins the prize. The holy grail in science is not to catalog a whole bunch of facts, but interpreting those facts into a wider paradigm that makes sense of the world we live in. While a lot of education a scientist receives is about previous and current theories/interpretations, at higher levels and in the professional circles there is also a lot of room for alternative interpretations of the evidence provided it follows scientific procedure. My point is not there there are no observations being made. There may be millions, even billions of observations that you can use to support a theory, but as long as the entire basis for that theory rests on something that cannot be observed then you have a problem. People are easily impressed with the sheer size of the card-house of data that science has collected during the past 200 years without realizing that it all basicly pivots on one single assumption. If that assumption turns out to be false then the entire card-house collapses. You say that scientists aren't trying to prove an old Earth or evolution but is this really true? I could give several examples that show that this is not true. And it should also be pointed out that the vast majority of the "98%" of scientists that believe in evolution are not really concerned with this debate at all. During their 9-5 jobs, which are probably quite tedious, they never encounter one shred of direct evidence that the universe is old or that evolution has ever occurred. Most of them just do what they were assigned to do - collect data, validate it according to what they have been taught is "correct" and then go home to their families just like the rest of us. My understanding of creationists is more than snippets of Ken Ham, but years interacting with them, and the behavior of top-level creationists like Ken Ham and the deception and ignorance they spread through their "ministries". I truly have absolutely no respect for the professional creationist with very few exceptions, at least the average creationist on the street doesn't try to be deceptive as far as I can tell, unfortunately Morton's Demon is often a powerful force. I also have experience of interacting with people in this debate that stretches back over a decade. I have looked at it from both sides and have been on both sides of the fence. When I started out examining this subject I was quite disturbed by what the proponents of evolution said and got pretty irritated at creationists myself until I started to scratch under the surface. I noticed a pattern that repeats itself. I don't doubt that there are instances where creationists have been ignorant. We ALL are to a very, very large degree. But since you make the assertion that this is a trait that is a typical characteristic of creationists then I think it's reasonable that you back up what you say. What examples of deception and ignorance have you uncovered? Please give me specific answers this time, because I never seem to get evolutionists to actually give me any details when they accuse creationists of these things. And the statement about science only dealing with natural causes is one of the things I talked about earlier; creationists often don't like the scientific method whether they realize it or not. Science must only deal with the natural, and many creationists just find that appalling. Again, science is more than cataloging facts, it centers around interpreting those facts within a scientific paradigm which means looking solely at natural causes. You may not like, I know many other creationists don't, but that is how science works. Either the scientific method is valid and/or useful, or it isn't, and creationists need to figure out which side of the fence they sit on. Well I have never in all the years I have followed this debate encountered one instance where a creationist has shown any dislike towards following the scientific method. Quite the contrary, because the scientific method is quite an embarassment for evolutionists. Here is an excerpt from the definition of the scientific method: "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." (Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Newton 1999, pp. 794–6, from Book 3, The System of the World.) It should be an eye-opener for anyone following this debate that everything that conflicts with the Bible falls outside of anything empirical or measurable. That in itself is astonishing considering a book that has become synonymous with "a really big book" and was written, in the words of atheists, by "bronze-age goat herders". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Fact is: I do not possess any factual nor objective knowledge that makes me assume that your God has more plausible explanatory power towards the genesis of stars than Thor has towards the genesis of lighnings. That is a spurious comparison. You cannot compare the mythology of Thor with God. The literature and mythology that surrounds the character of Thor is in no way similar to the information contained about the God of Scripture. Unless, of course, you can provide factual evidence that your God has more explanatory power than Thor. A Book, subjective experiences and personal relationships with spiritual beings do not provide this evidence, I am afraid. The problem is that you have repeated demonsteed that you are not really open to the evidence if presented. This is evidenced by nonsensical comparisons as if believing in God is like believing in Thor or the Easter Bunny or whatever. Those types of comparisons, meant to belittle faith in God, demonstrate that you have already pre-judged any objective evidence that could be presented as something you have no desire to examine in an honest way. For all of your pontificating about "science" you have a very unscientific and rather subjective approach to your denial of the existence of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts