Believe what you want, but just don’t call it science.
Believe what you want, and call it science.
Why must you assert that Biblical Christianity, a young Earth, and questioning current scientific dogma is unscientific?
Websters define science as
1. the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2a.department of systematized knowledge as an object of study (the science of theology)
3a.knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.
A generally accepted explanation of the scientific method would be:
1. Make Observation
2. Form Hypothesis
3. Test Hypothesis
4. Draw Conclusion
So, 1. The cosmos is organized, runs like clockwork, supports life on earth, and is beautiful
2a. Your Theory - The result of an explosion which created space, matter and time, 13.7 billion years ago
2b. My Theory - The result of an omnipotent being 6000 years ago.
3. Test Hypothesis with futher observation, theory, assumption, and faith (ughhh) for we CANNOT go back in time to know for sure
4a. The "scientific" conclusion: All we see is the result of an explosion, stars coallesced, planets formed, went into orbit, acquired moons, etc. Life in all of it's diversity and complexity, arose by spontaneous chance to be able to eat and reproduce, and through uncountable accidents in the encoding of DNA (which was spontaneoulsy generated as well) has led to the complexity of the human body. Life has no meaning, no purpose, no right or wrong, and nothing after death, for we are mere accidents of biological processes, and conscienceness is a chemical illusion.
4b. My conclusion: Jesus made it all in 6 days, just like he said, and He is the meaning, purpose, the Truth, and he controls Life. This Creator, who made DNA and the biological mechanisms to read, utilize, and reproduce it, designed the Earth for habitation, put it in the Cosmos he created, and then put life on it.
Our premise and hypothesis depends on which conclusion we draw, for we will both argue against the evidence that opposes our conclusions.
YE vs. OE is fundamental, not because of the supposed evidence for either, but because evolution requires the magic ingredient of "time", and lots of it, to work.
I will, BTW, as will you. But do you at least understand why I believe the Bible, even if you don't. Do you understand the points above (first 5)? Have you even considered their veracity? Can you so easily surmise my idiocy and you superiority? Do I offend you so much thatyou either discount or refuse to consider the claims of this 'Jesus'? Who do you say he was?
Our other debates are fun, but relatively meaningless in comparison to the nature of Jesus.
Jesus claimed to be God. Therefor, he is either:
1. a Lunatic
2. a Liar
3. Just who he claimed.
What say you?