Not true, many, if not most of those who post here from the literal point of view use the Bible as God's Holy Word therefore it must be Absolutely TRUE. But you say that is not an attempt to use it as a science text when discussing the age of the earth, evolution, etc. Give me a break. That is what half the discussions in this section of TOL revolve around. Its William Jennings Bryan all over again.
Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI
- Thread starter Nineveh
- Start date
Not true, many, if not most of those who post here from the literal point of view use the Bible as God's Holy Word therefore it must be Absolutely TRUE. But you say that is not an attempt to use it as a science text when discussing the age of the earth, evolution, etc. Give me a break. That is what half the discussions in this section of TOL revolve around. Its William Jennings Bryan all over again.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
cur_deus_homo,
They still are not claiming the Bible is a scientific text book. Figuring out the details with science is what is done in the lab and published as findings.
I forget the source of the quote, maybe someone can enlighten me, but it goes something like, "The Bible doesn't tell us the ways of Heaven, it tells us the way to Heaven."
They still are not claiming the Bible is a scientific text book. Figuring out the details with science is what is done in the lab and published as findings.
I forget the source of the quote, maybe someone can enlighten me, but it goes something like, "The Bible doesn't tell us the ways of Heaven, it tells us the way to Heaven."
Nineveh
Merely Christian
Strat,
Same question back to you, "what do you do when the details don't mesh with your darwin given truth?"
For me, when I don't understand something, I no longer first assume God is wrong, I assume I don't understand.
In the case of the comparison, the scientists were shocked, so obviously they guessed wrong. To err is human... It happens all the time. To me, it's up to me to figure out why things are the way they are, isn't it the same for everyone? Comparing reality to our belief system? So far I have not seen anything that calls God's existance into question, At one time I did, then I learned more.
Same question back to you, "what do you do when the details don't mesh with your darwin given truth?"
For me, when I don't understand something, I no longer first assume God is wrong, I assume I don't understand.
In the case of the comparison, the scientists were shocked, so obviously they guessed wrong. To err is human... It happens all the time. To me, it's up to me to figure out why things are the way they are, isn't it the same for everyone? Comparing reality to our belief system? So far I have not seen anything that calls God's existance into question, At one time I did, then I learned more.
You really do not understand. I don't think anyone believes truth comes from Darwin. He explained things as he saw them, his explanation made sense, made more sense as time went on, has been modified as time went on.
Science has no problem with changes. Happens all the time. See the latest news from S. Hawking re black holes. Time will tell if he is right now or was right before or perhaps there is even a different explanation.
Stratnerd
New member
1. There is no "Truth" in science so your question is illogical
2. Facts get incorporated and our explanations change.
then you just make stuff up to make it fit. this is why I keep saying creationists pound round pegs into round holes.
Creationist have no need of this since Truth is already known.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
Ther is enough "truth" in science to put us on the moon.
Expaination of how it fits into your world view or explaination of how it changes your wold view?
Seems to me you are just as guilty.
The Truth of the Creator, not truth of all of creation. That's part of the joy of being alive
God put a lot here to keep us busy.
cur_deus_homo
New member
I grant you that, but you implied that YECs don't use the Bible as a "guide" to science. They certainly do. The fact is that they do view the Bible as absolutely authoritative proclamations of God--directly inspired or transmitted or dictated or whatever--and thus they use it as their "guide" to TRUTH, which implies that they use the Bible to guide them in their "scientific" endeavors. Again, from the ICR site:
"A clear distinction is drawn between scientific creationism and Biblical creationism but it is the position of the Institute that the two are compatible and that all genuine facts of science support the Bible."
So you see, they can "claim" all they want about their "science" being "scientific" and being "distinct" from the Bible, but in the end it all supports the Bible. First, in this view of science ICR is rightly a pariah to be shunned. In my estimation their "tenets" directly contradict the first presupposition of the scientific method, that imaginative speculation is ultimately at the root of fruitful science. Of course the "method" part of the scientifc method accounts for the overwhelming majority of the quantifiable work done in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. But let us not forget the role of "scientific" inspiration (recall Einstein's famous train inspiration and the birth of relativity). Such speculation, imagination, and inspiration must not be beholden to a single metanarrative, such as the one found in the Bible. Science must be left to itself, so to speak, to form, re-form, and maintain its own metanarrative because it yields fruit, both practically and existentially. Second, from a theological perspective ICR should be shunned because they implicitly present the Bible and science in mutual submission to their queer presopositions about TRUTH. Christians believe Jesus is the TRUTH (John 14:6), not our own fallible rationalisms.
That's a pithy quote that I can go along with, for the most part.
aharvey
New member
Okay, Nineveh, I'm pretty sure it was you who took the exact opposite view on the role of science a bit earlier (yeah, about halfway through this thread). I said that science has both a descriptive and an explanatory role, and you argued vehemently that science should concern itself with the descriptive, and leave the explanations to you (presumably to the reader in general). NOW you are saying that science does not involve the description of what happened, it only addresses explanations of it happened that way?!? Could you get your story straight?
Originally posted by Nineveh
Me: Do you believe an entity "got the ball rolling"?
You: It's possible; see above. I don't view Genesis as a literal historical / scientific guide, though. Not that it couldn't be so, but I just don't assume it to be so. And I've seen precious little evidence that actively supports this notion.
You: I'm getting to the point where I can answer "Intensively so," though I'm probably not quite there yet.
Let me know
Well, let's put it this way. I'm willing to bet that I've got a better handle on the scope and calibre of the available evidence than do you! I've spent way too much time trying to dig out the evidential basis for YEC, and I'm not looking at whether it disagrees with evolutionary theory (duh!). I'm looking at the science itself; its hypotheses, predictions, data, and analysis, and so far what I've found fits nicely into the two spurious categories I described earlier. By the way, I'm still waiting to hear what you think of Brewer's paper in the light of its analytical deficiencies. Remember, you're the one who wants the data, spare you the interpretation. So I'm assuming you've got the ability to think critically about how the data is being handled and presented.
If it's so simple, why can't YECs agree on how to define a kind, much less recognize one? I wasn't telling you my thoughts on the subject, I was providing the range of current YEC interpretations. (Incidentally, when's the last time a mule and a deer interbred?) And how does your simple view handle ring species? in a ring species, each adjacent population can interbreed, but the most distant populations can't. (Do a google search for more info; also check Ensatina, a typical example) What about asexual organisms? They can't interbreed with any other organism. When you look at the way the world really works, simple answers quickly start looking simplistic.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
Unless you really want to split hairs over this, aharvey was saying he doesn't see the Bible as an historical/scientific guide. The Bible isn't a step by step how God did it all at the molecular level sort of Book. And I don't know anyone who claims that it is.
In other words they view the evidence with a Biblical world view. No differently than an humanist looks at the same evidence through their own world view.
Tell that to the weavers of evo tales.
Ok, so shun them if you feel the need.
Stratnerd
New member
sure it did but not every time... that's how science goes.. but not Truth. In fact, the theories involved in getting us to the moon have changed (Newtons vs. Einstein's theories on gravity). Not that it would change us getting us to the moon - but that's hardly the point is it. There are explanations and there are observations. Truth statements have to do with explanations more than observations.
poofer to evolver
above but you didn't answer me.
but obviously different books
aharvey
New member
And I don't know anyone, myself included, who would require that a scientific guide explains things down to the molecular level. That's not what I meant, and I don't even see how you could have made that gross extrapolation. When I say I don't view the Bible as a literal scientific guide, I mean that I don't eliminate from further consideration any proposed answer (to a scientific question) that is inconsistent with Genesis simply because it is inconsistent with Genesis. Scientific questions addressed in Genesis include:
What is the origin of the universe?
What is the origin of matter and energy?
What is the origin of life and its basic processes?
Why is life so diverse?
How did the Earth acquire its present geography?
Where did humans come from?
YECs get their answers to these scientific questions directly from Genesis, do they not? If not, where do you get your answers to these scientific questions?
cur_deus_homo
New member
And is that OK with you that ICR scientists view the evidence their way through their worldview filter and the vast and overwhelming majority of scientists view the same evidence through their own filter and the two ways of seeing and interpreting the evidence seem to be hopelessly and perpetually in disagreement?
Nineveh
Merely Christian
"I didn't see where they said the Bible explains how God did things on the scientific front. I see them explaining where they start from, evos start with darwin."
No, I can't see where that statement about AiG says a thing about what I believe. I'd rather no slant at all, especially in public school.
I will stick with my origional reply, it was the same to you, Strat ans john and it will stay the same as I answer it again:
You aren't arguing against the point he made about unique genetic sequences (the crux of the article).
Did you use BLAST?
I would have to take your word there is an argument, because I haven't seen it.
Well, perhaps you might want to offer a little more on the topic than just your word for it?
: looks at watch :
Breeding season?
You can hunt "muley-deer" in Montana.
I dunno, let me look into it, cool though huh?
a : involving or reproducing by reproductive processes (as cell division, spore formation, fission, or budding) that do not involve the union of individuals or germ cells <asexual reproduction> <an asexual generation> b : produced by asexual reproduction
Cells don't divide into anything other than cells. I don't understand how you are using this as an argument.
"There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers." - Ronald Regan
Stratnerd
New member
Niv do us a favor and take a basic biology course at the local community college.
Sometimes those cells GROW and become entirely new beings. Some plants do it there's even a few herps that do it.
So are these lizards a different kind since they don't breed via sexual reproduction?
What is the justification for using reproduction? The Bible? Isn't what is a species a scientific one? If so then why are you using the BIble to answer it if that is not a scientific text?