BUMPED, AGAIN
Christine had a long comment that I’m going to try to address. It’s pretty emblematic of the fingers-in-the-ears “thinking” that creationism and science are somehow interchangeable.
Just a few more questions for all of you…
If the scientific definition for fact says that the truth is never final, and that it can change tomorrow, can you logically accept this definition? How can you ever know that you’ve arrived at the truth?
You can’t. There is no Truth in science. That’s the beauty of it. Our knowledge and understanding are always growing, always changing. Science doesn’t need Truth to work.
If something is “generally accepted†by a certain community, does that make it true? That seems to have holes all through that “theory.â€
See above.
Has anyone looked at what method of dating is used and how that dating is validated?
Of course. Do you think some scientist just decided one day to invent C-14 dating and every other scientist in the world said “Cool”?
Is everyone that is arguing for evolution believe that all things came out of nothing, spontaneously, and arrived eventually in an ordered fashion? That order came out of chaos? How can this be?
Yes. Do you have kids? Were they always the size they are now? Or have they grown and gotten more complex over time? All it takes is energy and time.
What about all of the things that supposedly evolved but the original versions remain the same? Natural selection only works on some of the things but leaves some of those same things alone?
No, natural selection works on all life forms. If some happen to find an environmental niche that is only changing very slowly, they will evolve very slowly.
Just take one aspect of life on earth, reproduction. Look at all of the different life forms and all of the different ways they reproduce. You honestly think that that all happened by chance?
Sure. Why not?
There are plenty of “scientific-y†people out there who believe in creation. Read their stories. Read the biographies of those who have come before us, brilliant scientists.
What does the biography of a “scientific-y” person tell me? That they believed in a literal 6,000 year-old Earth? Well, if they lived long ago, that can be forgiven. Any scientist espousing such a belief today is just delusional (and not much of a scientist).
The very laws that we all know exist and cannot be changed are not “Newton’s Laws†or “Einstein’s Lawsâ€, but God’s laws. Does it even make sense in an ever-evolving world that these things must stay the same?
You assume a lot there. We all know that God’s laws exist? Which God? Allah? Jehovah? Vishnu?
The only Laws I recognize as universally True are the laws of physics. And they’re always subject to revision.
For those who really have made a wholehearted effort to understand creation, that is absolutely wonderful. I’d be curious to know what sources you have used.
Sorry, I can’t help here. Everything I’ve read on YEC has me guffawing by the second paragraph. Or pulling out what little hair I have left.
Evolution or science is most certainly a religion. It requires faith and has it’s doctrines and dogmas. It also allows man to worship himself and nature over the Lord God, Creator of Heaven and Earth.
re·li·gion (rÄ-lÄj’É™n) pronunciation
n.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
I’m pretty sure the dictionary definition only covers your side of this argument, as I don’t worship evolution or Darwin.
I would encourage everyone to look at this issue from all sides but understand that if you don’t believe in the Bible and the Lord God you may never be able to see what the Scriptures say about science and creation. Science continually proves Scripture.
You mean your version of Scripture. Give me one piece of evidence that is accepted by 51% of scientists. Something that is not intuitively obvious. The overwhelming majority of scientists do not consider the Bible useful for doing science.
With Scripture, you can stand resting in the truth, not relative to current theories, or everchanging beliefs of man.
Again, that’s your version of the Truth. Other folks may disagree with that interpretation.
And, yes, be on the minority side of a thread titled, “Dumb and Dumberâ€.
We finally agree on something. 🙂
Blessings,
Christine
OK, now it’s my turn–
Why do you care what other people think about YEC? You have Truth, don’t you? I mean, I don’t care if you teach your kids that the world is flat. I just don’t want your religion taught in the secular public schools. At least not as science. I wouldn’t have any problem teaching it as mythology. Of course, it’ll be taught right up there with Zeus vs. the Titans. I’m not sure you’d want that.
So, why can’t creationists agree to keep their religion out of the schools? Is this some kind of Great Commission thing? Are you going to save the Catholics heathens pagans (as Scott referred to us)?
Seriously, the anti-science rhetoric by the creationists would be funny were it not so pitiable.
6 Responses to “BUMPED, AGAIN”
 Comment by just passing by July 25th, 2006 at 5:43 pm |
The Yurica Report has an interview/article that touches on parallel institutions. Parallel institutions rewrite what our culture has come to accept into their version of truth and, in accordance to Biblical belief. Rewriting science is scarey enough. Now we have to contend with views such as David Barton’s view of history, to help nationalize us. |
 Comment by Daryl Cobranchi July 25th, 2006 at 8:52 pm |
I am among those that believe in creation, and although I can see where some science may, at face value, look like evolution is possible, it’s things like the Nike shoes that throw too big a loop in the evolution theroy. BTW, C-14 dating has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution. |
|
Comment by Daryl Cobranchi July 25th, 2006 at 9:01 pm |
That’s why I think the legit science for both sides should be taught. Fine. We’ll teach every single bit of the science associated with YEC. That’ll take all of a femto-second (1E-15 s). The rest of the year we can spend on real science. |
 Comment by Carlotta July 26th, 2006 at 12:49 am |
COD asked “I’m not sure why you keep trying with these people” At the very least, it makes me feel better, since it allows me to enjoy the sensation of thinking that I live in a world that can be said to contain genuine truth-seekers. So thanks, Daryl. |
 Comment by Cindy B. July 26th, 2006 at 9:17 am |
“Science continually proves Scripture.” Okay, so maybe I missed the research journal that chronicled the study proving that Noah could have fit two each of millions of species of animals, not to mention hundreds of millions of birds and insects, on a single boat. Must be a Law of Physics out there that I haven’t heard of yet. |
 Comment by sam July 26th, 2006 at 9:45 am |
In addition to Noah’s boat and the animals, his family also fit on the boat along with feed for all the animals and people. The animals were also placed so that none would be lost to predators as well as the boat being built to maintain its structural integrity when/if the largest animals moved or became frightened. A worried elephant being tossed around on a boat in a storm must be very well contained. |