|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "Evidence and Faith" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 444 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
No, I agree with you.
I think you are missing the point. How do I tell my Pastor that creation science is full of it?And if it is not full of it, then what should I tell him about it. I want to do that with authority.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Jar writes: Why do you think we go over the same topics again and again and again? Hopefully, we are testing our beliefs and by learning new ideas we allow these ideas to be examined by other critical thinkers. It is totally irrelevant whether anything new is possible. If it is new to you, it is new. I would not necessarily say that my Beliefs are new, but they are certainly seen by me differently than they were a year or two ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Rat writes: Perhaps a better question is why do you want to tell your Pastor that creation science is full of it? Do you really think that by stepping up and taking a stand you will cause your church to change its philosophy? or...would it be better for you to find a new church? How do I tell my Pastor that creation science is full of it?And if it is not full of it, then what should I tell him about it. I want to do that with authority. Personally, I disagree with most everyone in my church about something! Its the things we agree on that cause me to stay with them, however. They are no better or worse than any other group of people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 444 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Of course, by your own admission, you "hate" studies, so I don't know why you would have a problem with a doctor who ignores them. I don't have a problem with that nator. BTW, not every single study is wrong. As long as what my doctor is doing cures my problem, then he can go ahead and ignore that study. Example, for years I have felt that doctors pump way too much medicine into us. Now according to the latest studys, the doctors have found out to let peoples own immune systems handle the job, and to strengthen that immune system with proper diets, is really the better thing to do. Probably with each study, there is an opposing study, so what good are studies then, except to get us to think? I know a doctor who wrote on the perscription to read the bible.That actually seemed to work for that person. To me, that doctor ignored a study (somewhere I am sure) and I find that refreshing. If we are going to ignore study's then we should at least rely on God, that is faith. I don't have a rpoblem with that. I know several people who choose to do that, and by some magic they were cured. But there are no miracles right? It's all about finding that line between what is truth, and what is not. I don't want people to give up their fiath just because science exists, but the kind of science that looks to prove God, to me, is all born from a religious spirit, something that both me and my Pastor hate. You cannot prove God to anyone, except by love. Any religion or science that is attempting to do so, is just wrong IMO, and shouldn't be preached in the church I go to, if I can help it. But if I do not present it correctly, then they will continue to so it, and believe in stuff that just isn't true. Sooner or later, the truth will reveal itself to people, then be drawn away from God, because they were lied to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 444 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Read msg 34 on some of the reasons why.
I do not think it would be better to find a new church, because of a few reasons. 1. I see atheists as good people. People who seek truth. They can't find it in the church, and will do nothing to change the church, and I do not want to be one of the ones who runs fromt he church just because they are not preaching what I like. I would rather try to change it first, then if they do not accept it, then I will have to consider accepting them the way they are, or moving along. 2. According to our core relational values, I can speak my mind to them,(in truth and love) and this is a test of their own values. If they fail, then I know I shouldn't be there. If I can make a difference in a few hundreds peoples lives, and get them to more focus on what is right from God, then, thats is what I will do. IT is part of my calling. We as a church, and a body of Christ should only be following the two greatest commandments. IT is pretty simple, and all this creation science, and gems, and orbs, do not fit into those descriptions. Jesus was pretty emphatic about loving others. He told us to focus on the unseen, not the seen. When the woman touched his robe, and she was healed, Jesus didn't turn to her and say "see, that proves I am God" He said "your faith has healed you". All these other things, lead to religious condeming spirits, and I want no part of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
How do I tell my Pastor that creation science is full of it? And if it is not full of it, then what should I tell him about it. I want to do that with authority. The issue is with you wanting "Authority." Unfortunately, the solution is reason not authority, and I am not at all sure that your Pastor is open to reason. Creation Science is full of it because it starts with the conclusion. Creation Science operates on the exact same theology as the Biblical Literalists. Any conceivable answer is okay if it meets their needs, whether it is true or not. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Equinox Member (Idle past 5170 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
riveRraT wrote:
I think you are missing the point.
Wow, where to start in jumping into this thread?How do I tell my Pastor that creation science is full of it? And if it is not full of it, then what should I tell him about it. I want to do that with authority. First, kudos to you for wanting to help your church and the future of humanity. I’ve pointed out many times to ardent Chriationists that of all the people, things and institutions hurt by creationism, none is hurt more than Christianity. I’ve put together a rough outline of some of the ways creationism (note that the term “creation science” makes as much sense as “astrology science”, so I tend to use the term “creationism”) hurts Christianity. You may like to use it as a starting point, seeing which points you feel competent to discuss, and asking about any others as you choose. See especially #5b, perhaps. ***********************************Some of the Ways Creationism Hurts Christianity 1. Creationism/Intelligent Design Ridicules God bya. making God into a tinkerer (and a poor one at that) i. Bad designs - Human eye, dodo wings, sea turtle eggs, giraffe neck, horse fingers dev. ii. Most of our DNA is useless, like a book with hundreds of pages of “sdrvsdrvsdrvsdrv”. b. Making God evil- most species are parasites, wasp/spider, behavior alterers, matriphages, etc. c. Making God deceptive - “the evidence for evolution was placed there by God to test our faith” -would a good God trick someone, then torture them for it? Created with “appearance of age.” 2. Creationism Ridicules the Bible by making Genesis literal a. talking snakes - compare with flood or tower of Babel b. incorrect order, water < land, birds < land mamls, trees < sea creatures, reads like myth c. auditorium worldview (we live under a bowl or firmament)- are ark, Babel, real? d. “nave observer” approach destroys reliability of Bible, such as Jesus’ miracles e. Or, encourages Christians to make up unbiblical information and put it in the Bible 3. Makes Christians seem primitive and superstitious (anti-science) a. Creation Moments type broadcasts regularly incorrect (deceptive?) b. "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." - Robert Cardinal Bellarmine - -Trial of Galileo in 1615 c. Harmful to American competitiveness - not just biology, but physics, astronomy, archeology i. Hottest area now is biotech (genetics, healthcare, biomimicry) - based on evolution 4. Causes Christians to lie (and therefore over time implying that Christianity causes lying) a. Behe, Meyer, Hovind, Gish and others lying repeatedly, Dover testimony perjury b. Encourages Christians to (unknowingly?) spread lies - see nearly any creo website for numerous examples of well disproven falsehoods i. Lady Hope, claims that Arch. is a fake, that C14 can’t be used, moon dust, common deception using quote mining (such as Darwin eye quote), Paluxy track hoax, Plesiosaur caught by trawler, etc. 5. Effectiveness a. Does it cause millions of people to leave Christianity? (% Atheists have doubled since 1980) b. Creationist are often inside Christianity, thus more effective than Dawkins, Harris - who are often just offensive. But creationists can much more easily get themselves listened to by other Christians, who soon find out about what creationism really is, and then sometimes leave Christianity due to the “Christian” behavior they saw. *************************************************** Let’s try to address some other questions raised on this thread:
But in all the years so far that creation science has been around, has there every been any solid (objective) evidence that the world was created?
OK, first, as others have pointed out, creationism is an irrefutable hypothesis - that means, a meaningless statement that says nothing about the real world. For example - let’s say that I claimed that the evil wizard of oz on the distant planet X controls all our weather. No matter what weather we get, I can say “see, that’s what he wanted to happen”. Similarly for any conceivable piece of evidence, a creationist can say “that’s the way God created it”. Irrefutable hypotheses purchase their invulnerability by saying absolutely nothing about the real world. If they did, then that would be a testable point, and thus make them refutable. A refutable hypothesis would be, say, “the world began less than 10,000 years ago with today’s animals in their present form”. Because creationism (the claim that God created the world) is an irrefutable hypothesis, there is practically no evidence that COULD prove it. For instance, imagine any possible evidence, for instance, finding that rabbit fossils appearing suddenly in the geologic strata before any other vertebrates. This would suggest that they didn’t evolve from earlier forms, but wouldn’t be evidence that God created them, since they could have spontaneously created themselves, or been beamed in from another dimension, or what have you. So no, there hasn’t been any evidence supporting creationism, nor will there ever be. OK, so what can we do with evidence? We can test real, and testable, hypotheses. For instance, the hypothesis that life developed from earlier forms. Because no practical evidence can support an irrefutable hypothesis like creationism, creationists normally spend their time attacking what they see as rival hypotheses, such as evolution. The hypothesis of evolution has been tested literally millions of times by many different fields of science (such as anatomy, geology, genetics, pathology, neurology, chemistry and others) using many different methods. In practically all cases, the results have been consistent with our current understanding of evolution (not always our past understanding, because our understanding of evolution has evolved a bit itself). We have a stronger set of data confirming evolution than we do that the earth orbits the sun, or that the civil war occurred. So, even if we give up on evidence in favor of creationism, and instead look for evidence against evolution, we don’t have it - instead we have literally mountains of data confirming evolution, despite the fact that hypotheses based on evolution could very well be shown to be incorrect - that’s just not what the data says. The most common creationist tactic is perhaps to take evidence that confirms evolution and then use a variety of pseudoscientific techniques to discredit that evidence. For instance arguing that ontology doesn’t show evolutionary vestiges because Haeckel forged some drawings. Not only is this fallacious because the ontological evidence still stands despite Haeckel, but even if the ontological evidence did refute evolution, that in itself wouldn’t be evidence in support of creationism, unless an hypothesis were made which was actually supported by the evidence. In a similar vein, we could look for evidence supporting real (refutable) hypotheses that are consistent with creationism and not consistent with evolution. For instance, the hypothesis that “the earth is less than 10,000 years old”, or that “aquatic species are able to breathe water” (which is suggested by the idea that a designer designed them). In cases such as these, one can come up with a list of ways to test them - varves or dendrochronology, for instance, for the 10,000 year hypothesis, or simply looking at the breathing mechanisms of all aquatic species for the second hypothesis. It’s not hard to come up with a bunch of similar, real, testable, hypotheses - as well as ways to test them. In all of those cases that I’m aware of, the hypotheses consistent with creationism are not supported by the evidence, unless they are also consistent with evolution. For instance (see the previous two hypotheses), there are many ways that the earth has been shown to be older than 10,000 years, and many aquatic species can’t breathe water - often resulting in their death. Here is a thread having some: http://EvC Forum: REAL Flood Geology -->EvC Forum: REAL Flood Geology You might like to start a thread asking for other real hypotheses that are consistent with creationism if you want more - many people here are scientists, and coming up with hypotheses is often part of our jobs. Those would all be opportunities to actually see if the evidence supports them, but like I said, it doesn’t except for when the hypothesis is also equally consistent with evolution. Perhaps this would be what creation science should be - making refutable hypotheses consistent with creationism, and then testing them - NOT to prove creationism, but rather to see if the hypothesis is supported by the evidence, being willing to junk the hypothesis if it is not supported.
If I can make a difference in a few hundreds peoples lives, and get them to more focus on what is right from God, then, thats is what I will do. IT is part of my calling. We as a church, and a body of Christ should only be following the two greatest commandments. IT is pretty simple, and all this creation science, and gems, and orbs, do not fit into those descriptions.
I think this is a very important point. It’s hard to predict the future, but in the past, views that were inconsistent with the real world eventually were recognized as such, even if that process took a long time and much gnashing of teeth. I think of the Copernican revolution, the idea of a spherical earth, Newtonian physics, the efficacy of idolatry to cure a head cold, the idea that women became pregnant at random (without sperm), and on and on. As such, it seems likely to me that creationism will lose favor. If Christianity has by then tied itself tightly to it, creationism could hurt Christianity a lot. Or on the other hand, if people like you help get the church past the charlatanry and deception required to sustain creationism (and gems-in-the-lawn, and orbs, and snakehandling, and poison drinking, and . .), then maybe Christianity will survive as a healthy spiritual path. I’ll be out for the weekend. All the best- -Equinox PS. As far as where to start with your pastor, perhaps one good way to start would be to slowly and clearly go through case after case after case of clear and undeniable creationist deception to reveal how utterly immoral they often are. Maybe the Darwin eye quote mine, the Paluxy hoax, the Lady Hope story, the moon dust, the japanese plesiosaur, the deception used to say that the flagellum can't evolve, etc. There are many more to list, so I'd focus on the ones I was most comfortable with. There are plenty of places to start with your pastor, maybe the idea that evolution shows how wonderful God's creation is (that it can change freely), or how supported evolution is. I'm suggesting the above method (exposing the deceptions), but you may know a better way. Edited by Equinox, : Added PS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4022 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Well put, Eq.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 444 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
The issue is with you wanting "Authority." Unfortunately, the solution is reason not authority, and I am not at all sure that your Pastor is open to reason. When I say authority, I mean to back up my words with evidence. And my Pastor is very interested, and already expressed that he agrees with me, if I can back up what I say, and put everything into context.
Creation Science is full of it because it starts with the conclusion. I know this has been argued a thousand times over here, but doesn't many sciences start with a conclusion?Should it matter if the conclusion is subjective or not? Wouldn't real science eventually show those seeking the answer, the truth? My beef isn't with people doing creation science, as much as it is with them ignoring the facts.
Creation Science operates on the exact same theology as the Biblical Literalists. Any conceivable answer is okay if it meets their needs, whether it is true or not. So, how do I show this to my Pastor?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 444 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Thank you so much, for such an awesome reply.
This will take some time to go through it.
PS. As far as where to start with your pastor, perhaps one good way to start would be to slowly and clearly go through case after case after case of clear and undeniable creationist deception to reveal how utterly immoral they often are. Maybe the Darwin eye quote mine, the Paluxy hoax, the Lady Hope story, the moon dust, the japanese plesiosaur, the deception used to say that the flagellum can't evolve, etc. There are many more to list, so I'd focus on the ones I was most comfortable with. This is an excellent place to start.
There are plenty of places to start with your pastor, maybe the idea that evolution shows how wonderful God's creation is (that it can change freely), or how supported evolution is. I'm suggesting the above method (exposing the deceptions), but you may know a better way. I think in order for this to go over well, it is all in how I present it. I want to do it in a language that he, and the church can easily understand. I am hoping that I can even involve the bible in this discussion to show how we should not be taking this approach i.e. false prophets, two greatest commandments, idols, the woman's subjective faith that healed her when she touched Jesus's rope, etc. What you pointed out that atheists have doubled since in 80's, should be a genuine concern for the Pastor. Sometimes I (and maybe phat too) see atheists as being people that are going to save real Christianity. We now live in a society where we can speak out against what is wrong, and the truth can come through. I will be spending the next few days reviewing your post, thanks again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No. No science starts with the conclusion. Ascientist wonders about something she sees in nature. Has a "Hmmmm, that's interesting", or "I wonder if X happens becasue of Y" moment, let's say. This is speculation. They come up with one or several testable explanations for that phenomena. This is hypothesis-forming. This process is most often informed by the science of the past which current research springs from. Then, the hypothesis is tested against evidence from nature to see how accurately the explanation reflects reality. It is after all this is done that that any conclusion can be reached about the validity of the initial hypothesis. Science progresses by letting the evidence lead it to conclusions. Science never starts with conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Except if we speak out even though we know it will offend someone, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I know this has been argued a thousand times over here, but doesn't many sciences start with a conclusion? No! It is always a question. If this is true then ...?
So, how do I show this to my Pastor? I think one of the best ways to do that is by showing your Pastor how Biblical Creationist leaders LIE!. Use their material on radiometric dating and show your Pastor how they palmed the pea, not once but many times. Look at Message 76 and the message I am responding to there, as well as JonF's reply to me. That is a simple, clear and easily understood example and typical of their tactics. Creation Scientists are simply frauds and conmen out to get into Christian pocketbooks and wallets. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 444 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
No science starts with the conclusion. Ascientist wonders about something she sees in nature. Isn't that a conclusion? What about forensic science? What about a scientist who devotes his whole life to studying the pyramids? He concludes that the pyramids exist, so he studys to find out how. Cancer is a conclusion, then we seek to find a cure. Evolution. We are the conclusion, because we are here, then we seek to find out how. The real problem is the label "creation science". They should have labeled it, the theory of creation. But for sake of this discussion, let's get into a whole creation science is not science arguement, because the average person, probably wouldn't see a rpoblem with people searching for evidence of creation. What we have to explain to people, is the way these "creation scientists" are handling evidence, and selectively throwing what doesn't fit. But I will also use your definition in my explanation, about starting with a conclusion. I hope I am explaining myself correctly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 444 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Except if we speak out even though we know it will offend someone, right? Why do you waste replies? Come on, this is serious. I am trying my best here. Besides, there is a difference between knowing something will offend someone, and purposely offending someone (with intent to offend). I know when I present this, people might get offended, or they might not, but I am not purposefully offending them. I know you can see the difference.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024