|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "Evidence and Faith" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 446 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
You mean proving that they've never made a single scientific contribution? Let me reply by way of example. I claim there are pink unicorns living on a small planet in the Andromeda galaxy. You say I'm wrong. Can you prove I'm wrong? No, of course not. Does that mean these pink unicorns exist? No, of course not. You mean to tell me that everything on this page:http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp Cannot be proven wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 446 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Miracles do not have to defy the laws of the universe. So what are they, odds in your favor? I won the lotto, it's a miracle! This also means Jesus did not walk on water.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
You mean to tell me that everything on this page: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp Cannot be proven wrong? RR, you are confused as to what is being talked about. The pink unicorns point was in regards to your request that someone prove that creation science had never produced any controbutions. How does your list and question tie to that? You seem to be very mixed up on that. The pink unicorn example was meant to be an analogy to the creation science contributions. We suggest that neither exist but no one can prove (100 % totally) that they don't. However, in both cases one pink unicorn or one contribution would show the suggestion to be false. On the other hand maybe you just phrased it wrong? Are you offering that list as possible contributions? If so take your favorite and make a thread on it. One by one they will be shown to be either not a contribution or demonstratably wrong. (e.g if they refer to a question/mystery/unanswered issue in some science it isn't something they contributed is it?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
riVeRraT writes: Miracles do not have to defy the laws of the universe. So what are they, odds in your favor? I won the lotto, it's a miracle! That's one way of looking at it. I've told this story before: Two of us were stranded miles from nowhere in the dead of winter. Five minutes after we discovered we were stranded, a friend came by (by chance) and rescued us. If we hadn't been stranded, he'd have missed us completely. If he'd waited till the next day, he'd have found us dead. Was it a miracle? I'm alive because of it, but no laws of nature were broken.
This also means Jesus did not walk on water. So what if He didn't? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
first, happy 3rd.
now then, later in this thread there's this whole spat about creationism being science or whatever. Here's a quote from the AiG article in your PNT about rock formation.
This “clock in the rock” will eventually be displayed in our Creation Museum near Cincinnati, where we’ll be teaching people the truth about the history of the world . according to the Bible.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/...rs/features/clock-in-rock{bolding mine}. That is perhaps the biggest reason why what AiG is purporting to do isn't science. It's not because of the Bible per se. They are using the Bible as they're jumping off point, they're starting point. Also note the "according to the Bible". This implies something else, too. Science starts with physical observations. Also, science goes where the evidence leads. That phrase "according to" is suggesting to me, at any rate, that AiG doesn't give a rat's ass about what the real world says, only what the Bible says. This means that if the Bible claims a 6,000 year old earth, but the evidence suggests a 4.5 billion year old earth, what will they go with? The 6,000 figure, regardless of the amount of evidence against the Biblically inspired age. This suggests yet something else--the Bible is inerrant. They will ignore or misrepresent anything that makes the Bible errant. None of this is the hallmark of science. If AiG really wants to pass on the whole "we're doing science" charade, then they, and all other's saying the same thing, should drop the phrase "according to the bible", because of what it implies (and what actually happens). You want to show your Pastor that they're passing off a bunch of bullshit? That quote should help.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
You're missing the point again. The items in that list can easily be shown wrong because there is physical evidence for the way the universe really is. They are positive claims that can be easily challenged, unlike negative claims. The claim that it's incorrect that creation science has never made any legitimate scientific contribution is a negative claim. The claim that there are no pink unicorns living on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy is a negative claim. Negative claims are usually very difficult to prove.
The point you're missing is that you're going about this the wrong way by asking me to prove a negative claim. The problem has to be reformulated as a positive claim if any progress is to be made, so let me explain this another way. Let's say you make the positive claim, "Modern science based upon naturalism and the scientific method has never made any legitimate scientific contributions. Can you disprove that?" I reply, "Polio vaccine. Now it's my turn. Creation science has never made any legitimate scientific contributions. Can you disprove that?" Your turn. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 446 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
You want to show your Pastor that they're passing off a bunch of bullshit? That quote should help. You saw my proposed topic then? I was going to include it Just a thought, can a written passage that is thousands of years old, be considered an observation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 446 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
I reply, "Polio vaccine. Now it's my turn. Creation science has never made any legitimate scientific contributions. Can you disprove that?" Well yes, I guess. The AiG (which I suppose is not the end all to creation science) makes very clear that they are using this stuff to bring people to Christ, which IMO is unscientific. ABE, which also BTW, is a bad way to bring people to know Christ. IT is based on a lie, and will only hurt people in the long run. Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Okay.
So we have that they are not doing science and that they are practicing bad theology. What is the up side? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
technically speaking, the passage's existance (or the noting thereof) is an observation.
But quite frankly, unless we can observe what they observed (or the effects of the event or whatever they observed), it's not really relevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 446 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
But quite frankly, unless we can observe what they observed (or the effects of the event or whatever they observed), it's not really relevant. What if 500 people observed it. I mean we also have to be realistic, these events happened years ago. We know that it was written, now we have to find out why, and if it is true or not, just like writing on the wall of a cave. Similar to forensic science. I mean this to me, should be the basic idea, not saying the AiG does this. There mission statement is very clear. ABE, BTW, National Geographic Explorer, and the History channel, have been runnign many shows on just that, the science of the bible, and to see if what is written in the bible matches what they find. Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 446 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
What is the up side? Gives us something to talk about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
did the part about "or the effects of whatever event they observed" totally go over you?
The bible reports the flood. There are multiple flood myths. (that's your 500 people). We do not see any evidence of a flood in the past. The "observation" in those myths isn't really relevant, because there's nothing to support it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Yeah, it was hard for some of us to realize that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy don't really exist, but its all part of growing up to realize that there's no such thing as magic. I know that sounds harsh, but there it truly no difference between belief in Santa and belief in gods.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
We know that it was written, now we have to find out why, and if it is true or not, just like writing on the wall of a cave. We know with a very very high degree of certainty, that there has not been a world-wide flood in at least the last 50 million years or so, certainly not while there were humans of any kind alive. We know with a very very high degree of certainty, that the Exodus did not happen as described in the Bible. We know with a very very high degree of certainty, that the Conquest of Canaan did not happen as described in Joshua. We know with a very very high degree of certainty, that there was no Garden of Eden or Adam and Eve 6000 years ago and that by 6000 years ago modern man was living on EVERY continent except perhaps Antarctica. Those things are simply not in question. Religious organizations that teach Young Earth or The Flood or The Conquest of Canaan or The Exodus simply lie. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024