Posted on 06/22/2006 1:28:41 PM PDT by Tim Long
Non-Christians believe the universe runs by rules, too. Name one scientific advance that can be laid squarely at the feet of Creationism.
They are different ways of acquiring knowledge. You are correct that many early scientists were Christians, but if you examine their thought in detail you will find that they believed God set up the laws of nature and let them run.
Science and revealed religion depart every time science finds evidence that conflicts with someone's interpretation of scripture.
The earliest major example is Galileo's demonstration of the moons of Jupiter and his argument that the earth revolved around the sun.
In the early 1800's, decades before Darwin, geologists abandoned the argument for a single, world wide flood. By the end of the 19th century, the earth was assumed to be hundreds of millions of years old.
How a religious person deals with these conflicts is a personal matter, but the conflicts exist.
I gotta laugh about your comment about imposing my will by praying for someone. If you aren't Christian, then you would believe my prayers go nowhere anyway. How does that harm you? Is wishing you well also forbidden by you as well? ;) Anyway, hon, you got issues, and somehow I stepped into them. I feel bad for you, and yeah, I probably WILL say a prayer for you. I promise it will be something innocuous like a prayer for mercy or something. Have a good day.
susie
The universe had a beginning - Genesis 1:1,
That would be ideal, but as it is we have a very large part of the population who continue to cling to the past. Using god or religion to explain the unexplainable is something I can easily accept, but I also understand that as we become more knowledgeable the list of wondrous things god is responsible for will forever dwindle as we advance our understanding and knowledge of the universe. I'm sure most scripture made sense at the point in time it was written but it is not timeless and it is in our nature to seek the truth of our past and explore the unknown even if it disproves all we were taught. Where in our ancient past would we be now if our ancestors withheld all technology that could passably be used to contradict scripture?
Good answer in your post #584.
But the reason that the list of anti-evo scientists is growing is because creationists have created their own unaccredited science degrees.
In the long run this will be counter-productive. These people are not very good scientists. Would you want your Biblical exegesis done by a cell biologist?
Most of the people signing do not have degrees in biology.
We ran through the list in some earlier threads.
Many of them said their position was not accurately represented and they objected to being on the list.
Many of them didn't have real degrees in anything. ;)
That's not a scientific advance. That's an assertion.
First off, the way the survey question is worded, I would probably have signed it had I not known it was put out by that particular organization. Secondly, how many of those "scientists" are biologists? Anyone else has as much bearing on this issue as you or I.
It's a mostly stationary high-speed hurricane capable of putting an enormous amount of moisture into the air and at atmospheric level far above normal. It could explain where 40 days of rain came from.
But how could it produce more water than what was on earth at the start of the flood? And it doesn't account for higher atmospheric pressure, and a canopy would.
"The universe had a beginning - Genesis 1:1,"
The science behind current Cosmology is not the result of reading about the Genesis origin story. For you to attempt to credit the Bible or creationists for that particular theory is disingenuous.
Have you bothered to read the declaration? It is ambiguous at best and is obviously designed to be interpreted in such a way that only scientists who are well aware of its intended use would hesitate to sign it. Most if not all scientists believe that no scientific field should be taken on faith; questioning is the basis for discovery. At most and as written it is nothing but a list of a 'single mechanism doubters'.
I fail to see how this declaration is a net gain for anti-evolutionists since it does not declare the signers as anti-evolutionists.
P.S.: The list of scientists who are named 'Steve' that support evolution is a whole lot bigger than DI's little list so if you intend on applying DI's list in some misguided appeal to authority it can be easily countered.
Doubtful. The amount of 'extra' water necessary to flood the Earth is more than a hurricane, even one of monstrous magnitude, could handle. Even so it would only be the mechanism for distributing the water, not the source.
There are no current creationist hypotheses which can explain the flood and the absence of evidence a global flood would have produced. They all require more energy than is available and fail to account for the affects of heat produced. Even the idea that there were no (or only very short) mountains before the flood with rapid plate movement after to give them height ignores the resulting kinetic energy which would produce enough heat to boil the oceans and create massive tsunamis.
In all current flood hypotheses the science is bad.
If it is against the Christian moral code to support IV-embryo transfer, how can moral Christians pray for a procedure that is not morally allowed by their God?
What you have produced is a loaded question. In any case, whether IV transfer is against the Christian moral code or not, Christians also pray for sinners. BTW Christians also serve in combat.
A quote --- Novum Organum(preface)
But if any man there be who, not content to rest in and use the knowledge which has already been discovered, aspires to penetrate further; to overcome, not an adversary in argument, but nature in action; to seek, not pretty and probable conjectures, but certain and demonstrable knowledge; -- I invite all such to join themselves, as true sons of knowledge, with me, that passing by the outer courts of nature, which numbers have trodden, we may find a way at length into her inner chambers. And to make my meaning clearer and to familiarise the thing by giving it a name, I have chosen to call one of these methods or ways Anticipation of the Mind, the other Interpretation of Nature.
Actually there are hundreds, perhaps even thousands of explanations. Many disagree with each other and virtually all are contradicted by science. But there is no shortage of explanations!
And now for something totally different:
Q. What's harder than getting a pregnant Brontosaurus into the ark?
A. Getting a Brontosaurus pregnant in the ark!
(Noah! Make them stop. I'm getting seasick!)
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.