Controversial Christian topics with practical differences based on belief

[David1701]

8 hours ago, NotAllThere said:

Spurgeon - of course. Doh! I thank you. 

I don't care about Creationism, so I don't care about Genesis 1-3? Now there's a non-sequitur. And a false conclusion as well, since I do care about those chapters. But well done you for examplifing exactly the kind of response I was talking about it earlier. I don't care for Creationism because while one version may be true - it isn't science.

Creationism isn't science?!  You had better tell all those scientists who believe that it is.  They clearly need your wisdom.

Quote

I'm sure that when we get to be with the Lord, if we so care, we can view what really happened at Creation and see how it accords entirely with Genesis 1-11 (never mind 1-3).

The Bible is inspired by God; so, we can guarantee that Gen. 1-11 is true, along with the rest of the Bible.

Quote

The foundation of my faith is Jesus Christ.

Do you believe what He said about Adam and Eve?

[keet]

17 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Creationism isn't science?!  You had better tell all those scientists who believe that it is.  They clearly need your wisdom.

Some people consider creationism unscientific because they use a modern definition of "science" that (whether right or wrong) excludes philosophy, theology, and metaphysics -- though of course, some evidence and arguments for creationism are within even the strict modern physicalist definition of "science".

[David1701]

6 minutes ago, keet said:

Some people consider creationism unscientific because they use a modern definition of "science" that (whether right or wrong) excludes philosophy, theology, and metaphysics -- though of course, some evidence and arguments for creationism are within even the strict modern physicalist definition of "science".

That's a lot better; although, evolutionists (and I'm not saying that you are one - I don't know) also believe things about the past that they cannot prove.  They start with a philosophical basis of "there is no God" and proceed from there, which means that they are also not scientific, according their own definitions of science.

[teddyv]

5 minutes ago, David1701 said:

That's a lot better; although, evolutionists (and I'm not saying that you are one - I don't know) also believe things about the past that they cannot prove.  They start with a philosophical basis of "there is no God" and proceed from there, which means that they are also not scientific, according their own definitions of science.

As long as you are using 'evolutionists' in the sense of a philosophical view.

[NotAllThere]

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

Creationism isn't science?!  You had better tell all those scientists who believe that it is.  They clearly need your wisdom.

The Bible is inspired by God; so, we can guarantee that Gen. 1-11 is true, along with the rest of the Bible.

Do you believe what He said about Adam and Eve?

Your first point.

Why can creationism be true, but not scientific (as opposed to unscientific). Well, that's easy. Science is looking at the facts and building theory from that. Then, making predicitions and seeing how well the theory matches it. If it works well, but at boundary cases there are issues, you refine the theory (so Newton to Einstein).

Another test of theory is whether you can produce ideas that, if false, indicate the theory is false.  I.e. can you prove the theory is also not invalid. Falsification is very important. 

If creationism is a science, then please explain to me how it can be demonstrate to not be true? How can it be proven false? Only sciences can be proven false - that is my contention.

Second point.

I believe it is true along with the rest of the Bible. Perhaps I don't agree with your interpretation.

Third Point.

Yes. I believe everything that is written in Genesis concerning Adam and Eve.

So points 2 and 3 - we're in agreement. Which is nice. The only point we're not in agreement is whether Creationism is a science or not, which, I would contend, is outside the context of Christian faith.

 

So funny. I've been doing these forums for over 25 years. I love it how people make all kinds of assumptions. It's very simple.

When you know nothing about the person you are talking to, it is really silly to use arguments of appeal to authority such as "You had better tell all those scientists who believe that it is. "

I will deal with what you say. I will give my opinion. If I justify my opinion, I'll give specific references. I will do my level best to not attack you personally.

 

Funny though. The guy I meant in my first post was also called David. So - how are you kdis? I really liked your son -sorry to hear about his present difficulties.

[NotAllThere]

58 minutes ago, teddyv said:

As long as you are using 'evolutionists' in the sense of a philosophical view.

Evolutiosism is, in many (i'd say sciences, but that's too generous so I'll go for...) discipines the only point of view.

Bit of a shame, since evolution, though science, is a very weak theory. 

[NotAllThere]

7 hours ago, GandalfTheWise said:

Another physicist here?  

 No. I'm better than you. I'm a mathematician. 

Hey- infinities are IMPORTANT. You can't just magic them away! 

[Alive]

I'm a generalist and so my 'big picture' is better than any of ya.

:-)

[NotAllThere]

9 minutes ago, Alive said:

I'm a generalist and so my 'big picture' is better than any of ya.

:-)

You've never met me. If you had, you know you're delusional. 

[Alive]

Just now, NotAllThere said:

You've never met me. If you had, you know you're delusional. 

My delusion is my own...leave it be, please.

LOL