Faith vs Science

Message 13 of 186 (781874) 04-08-2016 12:29 PM

Reply to: Message 12 by PaulK 04-08-2016 12:24 PM

Because the story in Genesis 2&3 refutes the story in Genesis 1; the method is different and the order of creation is different.

That's why we get the folk claiming the Bible talks about two instances of creation or that gen 1 is the plan while gen 2&3 is the execution.

Message 14 of 186 (781875) 04-08-2016 12:53 PM

Reply to: Message 7 by Thugpreacha 04-08-2016 12:02 PM

But there lies much of the problem.

The readers often do not like the words themselves and so find ways to get around the words themselves.

The goal is to find an explanation that fits the conclusion wanted.

A great example is in Genesis 2&3. In that story the god character lies and the serpent tells the truth.

But that is NOT what the believers want so it has to be something different, find some other meaning than the words themselves.

Faith begins with the conclusion, looks for or manufactures support and ignores anything that might conflict.

Science is just the opposite.

Science presents something and says "Please show how this is wrong". Science advances by finding mistakes and false conclusions.

Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

Message 33 of 186 (781913) 04-09-2016 12:48 PM

Reply to: Message 30 by Thugpreacha 04-09-2016 10:11 AM

But what is often not done is acknowledge those nuggets that refute your position and that is why there can never be "Creation Science" or "Creation scientists". A scientist who sifts through the data and selects only the nuggets that support his theory should get fired immediately and all of his works subject to intense scrutiny.

Message 38 of 186 (781918) 04-09-2016 2:28 PM

Reply to: Message 36 by Thugpreacha 04-09-2016 2:14 PM

Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary analysis.

There was a poster here for awhile to took over Ron Wyatt's marketing after Ron died and I asked about him ignoring evidence in some of the "evidence" he presented (one example was his claim that a photo showed a 'guard shack' when there were no widows facing the gate and rocks with pictographs he claimed showed calves when in fact they showed all kinds of animals and human figures in full phallic pose.

When I pointed out that a guard shack with no windows facing the gate was just stupid and that the rock did not show calves his response was "Why would I present evidence that did not support me?"

The difference between science and theology is that there seems to be a culture of honesty and morality when dealing with science that is totally missing in much of the Faith and Theology camp.

Message 54 of 186 (788484) 08-01-2016 9:35 AM

Reply to: Message 46 by Thugpreacha 08-01-2016 4:29 AM

Faith should not have evidence. Once there is evidence we move from the realm of Faith into the area of conclusions.

Of course people can get angry when their beliefs are challenged but they cannot then act based on that anger.

Creationists cannot claim Faith and then claim it is supported by evidence or Science. If they do make such claims then their beliefs MUST be challenged.

I'm sorry but that makes no sense. That is not a matter of witness but rather one of fact. What does the story say? It really is that simple. Now apologists can market what the story really means all they want, but that is irrelevant to what the story actually says.

It is this significant difference that so often really is the issue. If someone says "I believe the stories mean the same thing" then that is fine but if they say "I believe the stories are the same" it moves out of the realm of Faith and into the realm of Evidence and the evidence must always override belief.

There is what is supported by evidence and what is unsupported by evidence. The goal is owned by the Apologist who wishes to market a belief and those who wish to adopt that belief without critical examination. And in that instance there really is them and us; those who examine critically and those who refuse to examine critically.

Message 166 of 186 (810094) 05-23-2017 12:04 PM

Reply to: Message 163 by Thugpreacha 05-23-2017 11:54 AM

Sorry but the "apart from Jesus Christ Himself" is certainly not evidence of anything.

The Bible stories like any stories can be accepted as evidence that at some time someone wrote what the stories contain, but that is about the only weight the Bible should be given.

No, Faith never has evidence. If there is evidence no faith is required.

It's perfectly normal for folk to get angry when their beliefs are challenged. What is important is whether they get angry at the challenger or themselves? It is only when they get angry with themselves, when they stop and seriously critically examine their beliefs that growth is possible.

No, that is simply silly. If there is a different definition then it is NOT science.