Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the creation/evolution debate taboo in our churches?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 33 of 51 (531443)
10-18-2009 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Arphy
10-17-2009 11:36 PM


Re: About the question posed to the non-religious
Do you consider it essential to your Christian faith to believe in Young Earth Creationism? If so, then yes, you must renounce astronomy, physics and geology at least
So you think there is no such thing as a YEC astronomer, physicist, or geologist?
You either follow the scientific method where it leads, or you follow some other a priori belief.
If you follow a fundamentalist belief that accepts scripture and "divine" revelation above the scientific method, and reject the overwhelming evidence for an old earth, then you are not a scientist in spite of any education or credentials you may have acquired. To purport otherwise is absolutely dishonest.
To hold such beliefs is to ignore, misrepresent, or falsely deny the evidence. There's no way around it.
Ahh, thanks for informing me.
Obviously I don't think that your statement above is correct otherwise I wouldn't take the position i do.
You either follow the scientific method, or you do not. Its that simple. If you reject the scientific method in favor of scripture or some other belief, at least admit that you are not doing science.
at least, not as far as the creation and flood stories are concerned; presumably, they do view the stories about Christ as historical fact, which is a separate matter involving no dispute with major fields of science)
So why become inconsistent with belief in the bible when it comes to the creation and flood account?
Because they have been shown to be inaccurate! The empirical evidence tells a much different story.
You can be as consistent as you need to be, but just don't claim to be doing science when you reject the scientific method and use "divine" revelation and scripture as your overriding sources of "knowledge."

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Arphy, posted 10-17-2009 11:36 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Arphy, posted 10-18-2009 9:38 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 41 of 51 (531585)
10-19-2009 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Arphy
10-18-2009 9:38 PM


Re: Inaccurate
Because they [creation story and global flood story] have been shown to be inaccurate! The empirical evidence tells a much different story.
When christians believe this they become inconsistent because they still believe the doctrines which are based on what they think is a "myth". These people are being inconsistent. If christianity and the bible are true then they must also be consistent with reality. I believe they are consistent with reality.
I too find that religious belief, to be "true," must accord with reality.
The problem is that so many posters to this, and other, websites hold opposing views. For example, many hold that everything in the bible is inerrant. They are completely unwilling to accept any evidence from the natural world that may be to the contrary, no matter how detailed or convincing that evidence may be to science.
The classic examples are the age of the earth and the global flood. More recently, many creationists have made extensive efforts to combat the theory of evolution on religious, rather than scientific, grounds.
So how do those who hold the bible to be inerrant reconcile the evidence for an old earth, the lack of a global flood about 4,350 years ago, and the mountains of evidence that support the theory of evolution?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Arphy, posted 10-18-2009 9:38 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024