-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T
But somehow it's not dishonest to teach uniformitarinism and naturalism as Science? Seems a bit disingenuous if you ask me. They're both philosophies used to explain that which observational science cannot. Evolutionists and theistic evolutionists can stamp their feet all they want, it doesn't make something true. They take their beliefs on faith too.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes I have. What you have to consider when you refer to someone as a "scholar" of the Bible is this. Are they secular, meaning one who views the Bible strictly as a narrative document, as nothing more that an anthology of stories with no eternal implications, there are many of these types of "scholars" or are they scholars who regard the Bible as the Word of God? If you will read post #940 this will explain what I am talking about.
It feels a bit like being asked to prove the Earth orbits the Sun. You really want evidence that the Sun is powered by fusion? Do you have a better suggestion? If you do the physicists will be keen to hear from you. Otherwise go to Wikipedia or pick up some astronomy books at the library. All your question can be answered, but I suspect you won't accept what anyone says unless it fits the Genesis account.
Genesis has some very serious problems.
Genesis has some very serious problems.
Heh, you'll all love this I'm sure:
Does the Earth revolve around the Sun? On this I am not totally convinced.
In fact I'll take it a step further (I can all ready hear the modernists' brains cracking before I even ask it)
How do you know Earth is even a sphere?
Either one as far as I am aware is technically plausible by both the Bible and Secular Science. Opinions?
Does the Earth revolve around the Sun? On this I am not totally convinced.
In fact I'll take it a step further (I can all ready hear the modernists' brains cracking before I even ask it)
How do you know Earth is even a sphere?
Either one as far as I am aware is technically plausible by both the Bible and Secular Science. Opinions?
On this we are both agreed, yet it seems nonetheless that there is a divergent creation story beginning at Genesis 2:5. It even gives a different order of events in the creation of the first humans, and that is only part of what is different. How do you account for the contradictions? It really does look like a different creation story.
Well, science and theology/worldview are two different things. Maybe a worldview is implied in certain school texts, but I took a secular, basic level science class last semester, and I certainly didn't feel that my values and perspective on life was influenced in the least. My theology didn't change, I didn't start questioning the redemptive work of Christ (as some YECers warn will most likely happen), or none of that silly stuff. I know how to separate things of faith and the natural world.
Stomping feet in protest to evolution being taught doesn't make it NOT true. What disproves the theory is evidence. Bill Nye said himself at his debate with Ken Ham "You have evidence against evolution? Bring it on! You would change the world! I would gladly reject evolution in the light of evidence." (paraphrase) Also, in my science class, it was taught that evidence would disprove the theory. There are several ways to disprove it - if Christians really wanted to do that, they would be digging away relentlessly at the fossil record, rather than arguing about "two kinds of science."
In my class, it was not taught as a dogmatic, philosophical worldview, but a theory that has been formulated due to certain evidences in the fossil record and other places, and just because it is a viewpoint about the past, doesn't make it invalid, anymore than a creationist perspective is automatically invalid because it is in the past. We have developed many theories and conclusions about the way civilization in the past worked - with archeology. But I don't see Christians jumping to say that the Egyptians didn't worship multiple gods because the statues were examined under a bias. And the same could be applied to things we've learned about other cultures not mentioned in Scripture. The evidence is there, and we examine it.
The issue at hand is that we haven't been around long enough and been aware of this idea long enough to see such progression that the theory suggests... but we see it in the fossil record. And that is tangible evidence in which we can make a prediction that will take a while to test in its entirety, not merely a preconceived notion based on a bias. That's what science is - making a prediction, testing it many many times, recording the results, and examining the data.
This is not to say there isn't evidence for YEC. However, I personally feel the arguments are lacking, in light of what I have learned. This is not an invitation to discuss anything in particular, I am just stating.
Stomping feet in protest to evolution being taught doesn't make it NOT true. What disproves the theory is evidence. Bill Nye said himself at his debate with Ken Ham "You have evidence against evolution? Bring it on! You would change the world! I would gladly reject evolution in the light of evidence." (paraphrase) Also, in my science class, it was taught that evidence would disprove the theory. There are several ways to disprove it - if Christians really wanted to do that, they would be digging away relentlessly at the fossil record, rather than arguing about "two kinds of science."
In my class, it was not taught as a dogmatic, philosophical worldview, but a theory that has been formulated due to certain evidences in the fossil record and other places, and just because it is a viewpoint about the past, doesn't make it invalid, anymore than a creationist perspective is automatically invalid because it is in the past. We have developed many theories and conclusions about the way civilization in the past worked - with archeology. But I don't see Christians jumping to say that the Egyptians didn't worship multiple gods because the statues were examined under a bias. And the same could be applied to things we've learned about other cultures not mentioned in Scripture. The evidence is there, and we examine it.
The issue at hand is that we haven't been around long enough and been aware of this idea long enough to see such progression that the theory suggests... but we see it in the fossil record. And that is tangible evidence in which we can make a prediction that will take a while to test in its entirety, not merely a preconceived notion based on a bias. That's what science is - making a prediction, testing it many many times, recording the results, and examining the data.
This is not to say there isn't evidence for YEC. However, I personally feel the arguments are lacking, in light of what I have learned. This is not an invitation to discuss anything in particular, I am just stating.
Heh pictures prove nothing if they can be faked and NASA has a proven long history of faking pictures. What other ways can you prove to me Earth is sphere?
For me the most questionable thing about Sphere Earth is: Why is 1/4th of Antarctica unclaimed? Why the UN flag display a Flat Earth with no Antarctica? Why does the Compass only point to the North Pole but not the South Pole? Is it possible no man has ever actually been to the South Pole?
For me the most questionable thing about Sphere Earth is: Why is 1/4th of Antarctica unclaimed? Why the UN flag display a Flat Earth with no Antarctica? Why does the Compass only point to the North Pole but not the South Pole? Is it possible no man has ever actually been to the South Pole?
Aye this is the common proof given for spherical earth. But I could easily prove that is an optical illusion as all one needs is a telescope and they will be able to view the ship continuing across the flat surface of the water that only appeared to sink below the horizon with the naked eye.
Heh, just want to note, don't matter to me whether Earth is a sphere spinning at 1000 miles per hour (seems kinda ridiculous, but why not) or a disc flying upwards so many miles per hour lol. Is a nice break from the monotony of the typical debates though lol.
Heh, just want to note, don't matter to me whether Earth is a sphere spinning at 1000 miles per hour (seems kinda ridiculous, but why not) or a disc flying upwards so many miles per hour lol. Is a nice break from the monotony of the typical debates though lol.
Dawkins is a neo-Darwinist, as are many evolutionary scientists. What is it you think Dawkins is distorting? How is he dishonest?
Dawkins himself makes this same point. He has said he will not state categorically God does not exist, and describes himself as a 6.9 on his scale of religious belief. I do not think Dawkins would say that evolution disproves God. He would say that evolution makes God unnecessary. He does argue that the creation account makes no sense except in terms of bronze age cosmology which is what every single evolutionary scientist states. Can you think of an exception?
Actually that Catholic Church has turned it around. Even the Pope now accepts evolution.
What a lot of people don't seem to get is that in 1995 Dawkins was appointed the Oxford Professor for Public Understanding of Science. This cast him into the role of defending science against attacks by creationists. Also, his field was the main focus of attacks by the Christian Right. What do you expect him to do, stand back and ignore them?
Dawkins himself makes this same point. He has said he will not state categorically God does not exist, and describes himself as a 6.9 on his scale of religious belief. I do not think Dawkins would say that evolution disproves God. He would say that evolution makes God unnecessary. He does argue that the creation account makes no sense except in terms of bronze age cosmology which is what every single evolutionary scientist states. Can you think of an exception?
Actually that Catholic Church has turned it around. Even the Pope now accepts evolution.
What a lot of people don't seem to get is that in 1995 Dawkins was appointed the Oxford Professor for Public Understanding of Science. This cast him into the role of defending science against attacks by creationists. Also, his field was the main focus of attacks by the Christian Right. What do you expect him to do, stand back and ignore them?