Posted on 11/24/2009 9:27:06 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Today, November 24, it is exactly 150 years since Charles Darwin published his On the Origin of Species.
The world has been gearing up for this “second echelon” of celebrations for this international “Year of Darwin”, following on from the 200th anniversary of his birth this last February. Atheists and humanist groups in particular have seemed to be relishing the thought of giving further prominence to the ideas of their patron saint. Their adulation is heightened by their knowledge that...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Perfect, as long as you don't get into the domain when credentials define credibility. So, when you simply believe, I am not going to open my dirty mouth to spew blasphemies. However, when you, out of sufficiently strong faith, create some pseudoscientific perversion, which gives all conservatives a bad name, then it becomes my concern too, and I have the credibility to debunk it.
"JUST as your SCIENCE says that there is no way that the earth is <10,000 yrs old"
Strictly speaking, science (combined with the concept of omnipotent God) doesn't say so. If God is omnipotent, then He could have created the Earth 6,000 years ago, together with all the material evidence pointing out to billions years of history. Why? This is another matter and I live this to theologians. But this is a side note.
"You proclaim Faith in your Risen Savior (As do I), and then point your crooked little learned finger at His Book and declare Him a LIAR!"
Well, this was EXACTLY the argument used by some Christians long time ago, on the occasion of discussing the flatness of Earth and the Earth being the center of the Universe. "You point your crooked finger and call God a liar"? So, either be very careful not to fall off the edge of the Earth, or accept the notion of allegorical meaning of certain things in the Scripture. The mainstream Christianity have already learned this lesson, several hundred years ago.
That *The Bible teaches that the earth is flat* is a lie.
That’s just being used by evos to try to destroy the credibility of creationists.
Obviously, evos have nothing real or valid to use, so they must make up some wild-eyed scenario to tell others, one that has no basis other than having been repeated by FRevos innumerable times. There is no historical justification for that rumor and there’s no factual justification.
It’s only a perversion of Scripture, which is really interesting to behold.
In Genesis when it clearly says that God used the dust of the earth to create man and animals, evos read all kinds of things into that passage in a vain attempt to claim that it really means evolution and the Bible doesn’t really mean what it says.
It’s the same technique that they use for the flat earth argument. They take a passage of Scripture and read all kinds of things into it that it never says, and claim that that’s what the Bible teaches, even when there are verses that mention the earth being a sphere and floating in space.
But those verses are conveniently ignored as they cannot be used to misrepresent Christians and creationists as anti-science Luddites.
If theology and science are supposed to be kept separate, then where to scientists get off telling creationists and Christians how to interpret the Bible, saying that God really meant that He used evolution in Genesis when it clearly says He didn't?
Where do scientists get off telling people how to interpret the Bible so that it *proves* that the earth is flat?
Evos keep spreading lies about the beliefs of creationists, despite being corrected by creationists time without number.
Don't scientists have any compunction or scruples about lying? No ethical or moral basis for saying that lying is wrong?
Great examples. Penicillin was discovered by accident, but after not many years microorganisms got resistant (evolution, believe or not) and it was necessary to rationally modify the penicillin, to produce antibiotics that still work. And this work continues. Understanding the process of developing resistance is interconnected with understanding natural selection.
As for electricity, well, lots of it is generated in nuclear power station. If we accept the flagrant attitude of creation pseudoscience toward nuclear physics (aimed at undermining radioisotope dating), then these power plants either wouldn't work, or they should be located on the Moon (it's you guys who advocate that the rates of nuclear reactions can change).
"The great scientists of the last few centuries saw no conflict between the two."
The great scientists a few hundred of years ago worked indeed by gathering observations and developing isolated disciplines. Unfortunately for you, as the body of knowledge reached some critical point, science became interdisciplinary. Biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics and so on are interconnected, and facts from one discipline are corroborated by facts (and applications) in another. Unfortunately for you, if you remove, for example, the radioisotope dating, then you are messing with the whole nuclear physics, which currently works just fine and explains the observed phenomena. If you remove evolution, you can't explain drug resistance, and you have to discover new drugs completely blindly, relying on chance...
"There is no reason to keep theology and science separate"
I am NOT advocating keeping ethical norms derived from religion separate from science. I am advocating NOT DEVELOPING a pseudoscience to "support" religion. Actually, such developing is AGAINST the words of Christ. We are supposed to believe, not stick our dirty fingers in wounds!(John 20)
Correction to #141: should be, of course, “out of LACK of sufficiently strong faith”.
...once you interpret them in the light of current scientific knowledge.
IN RESPONSE to your perverting science. Don't do it, so rebuttals won't be necessary.
Keep’em separated? What a laugh. Both positions deal with the unobservable, unrepeatable past. And while much empirical science is drawn upon by both sides in support of their respective points of view, said empirical science is used to make inferences about the past, it doesn’t investigate the past events themselves. As such, both sides of the debate are engaged in what is called historical science. And in historical science, the name of the game is “multiple competing hypothesis.” Creation and ID represent two of those competing hypothesis, and evolution is a third. May the best hypothesis win!
Jesus invited Thomas to do so. Why are you criticizing that? Don't you like that Jesus did that?
Of course it's a lie. It would only teach that the Earth is flat IF one applies your strictly literalist interpretation.
No, once you interpret that in light of what it simply says.
Science and scientists started perverting Scripture long before creationists allegedly perverted science.
Scientists have been telling Christians and creations for years how to interpret the Bible and what they think it means when it says something else.
It happened in the early 1900’s when the scientific community held to the steady state theory of the universe. They scoffed at the idea that the universe had a beginning and Einstein even fudged his relativity equations, adding his *cosmological constant* to make the equations fir the theory.
The only people who (rightly) believed that the universe had a beginning in those days, were the Bible believers, who took God at His word over the speculations of man.
And tell me, who was right? And who were the ones perverting science to try to make their point?
Then why are you promoting the lie that creationists and Christians believe and believed that the earth was flat?
If God is omnipotent, then He could have created the Earth 6,000 years ago, together with all the material evidence pointing out to billions years of history. Why?
BECAUSE we are to walk by Faith and not by sight.
I fail to see where the Bible says that the earth is flat. In fact, since you love allegory, it specifically says that it is round. “Your sins will be cast as far as the east is from the west”. Why east-west? Because on our GLOBE there isn’t a beginning to either, and it was known then, especially to God.
“I think we are close to an amiable solution, because this is exactly what we are asking for: keep these fields (science and theology) separate.”
Why should they be kept separate? and How could they be even if that were desired?
It "simply says" circle, not sphere. I'm sure you know that. They had a word for "ball" they could have used, but didn't.
The answer will be quite brutal. Jesus indeed invited Thomas to do so, and for this reason Christian (especially Catholic) scientists consider Thomas their patron saint. Immediately afterwards, however, Jesus admonished Thomas:
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
So, scientists still examine things, but the general populace is just supposed to believe, because this is the MORE APPROVED way. You want to be a scientist? Fine, train, learns, and walk the thin line between reason and faith, trying not to offend either. When you offend faith, you are on your way to become an unethical scoundrel, like Dr. Mengele. If you offend reason, you are no longer a scientist, but a quack, unnecessarily sticking dirty fingers where they don't belong. This briefly sums up being a scientist AND a Christian.
You sir, should be spreading the gospel, not discrediting our Saviors Book.
Because YOUR WAY of interpreting the Scripture unavoidably leads to the flatness and geocentrism. unless, of course, you cherry pick what to interpret literally, and what is allegorical, but then you would have to convincingly explain the rationale behind such cherry picking.
And they had a word for flat that they didn’t use to describe the earth.
The flat earth argument is still and always will be a lie promoted by those with an agenda to discredit Christianity and creationists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.