Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What is Creation Science or "Biblical Creation"? Simple words, but how to flesh out?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    What I would like to 'flesh out' is the justification of this highly flawed line of logical and reason that rejects the scientific knowledge, or selectively parse it to make square pegs fit in round holes. This is not problem of clinging to ancient paradigms is not exclusive to Christianity. It is becoming increasingly in vogue in Islam, and some sects of Hinduism also reject evolution like the Hari Krishna. It is an interesting paradox of the relationship of human belief and the reality of the world around us..
    I think the explanation is simply "Morton's Demon". This occurs in almost any area of divergent opinions and high emotion. It is not restricted to Christians or to YEC.
    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      I believe exegetically the role of the kataphatic view of nature Biblical scripture tends toward a more literal view as positively authored or directly inspired by God in part or whole. This leads to the conclusion that the beliefs expressed by the NT authors concerning the nature of OT scripture is the standard for understanding Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch.
      Unless the Bible were meant to be a font of all knowledge at least where mentioned then I don't see how it could make a bit of sense across the ages. To me the best reading of an ancient document is from the context and culture of the people who wrote. And since "people are people", the spiritual value of the Bible shouldn't be affected by its occasional spurts of ANE scientific inaccuracy.

      Fundies at both ends of the spectrum (New Atheist <--> Fundamentalist AKJV1611 only Christians) are the ones who disagree with my opinion -- and that's telling. I wish Jorge were here to analyze that.

      K54

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
        Unless the Bible were meant to be a font of all knowledge at least where mentioned then I don't see how it could make a bit of sense across the ages. To me the best reading of an ancient document is from the context and culture of the people who wrote. And since "people are people", the spiritual value of the Bible shouldn't be affected by its occasional spurts of ANE scientific inaccuracy.

        Fundies at both ends of the spectrum (New Atheist <--> Fundamentalist AKJV1611 only Christians) are the ones who disagree with my opinion -- and that's telling. I wish Jorge were here to analyze that.

        K54
        Indeed, Morton's Demon is on a rampage in American politics today, e.g.

        K54

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Disagreeing with the YEC reading of Scripture is not disagreeing with the Bible but how YECs interpret it.
          Nonsense, untrue and a misrepresentation of reality.
          You should know better after reading hundreds of my posts.
          If you were Pinnochio, your nose would be dragging on the floor by now.

          Jorge

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            The belief this universe was created is not necessarily 'magic' nor does it necessarily involve magic. It is a religious/philosophical concept, yes. But that does not make it 'magic'. Creation Science is therefore not an oxymoron for the reason you cite. Further, it is conceivable that if the universe has a Creator, there are historical records of His hand left in the creation that can be discovered scientifically. So the possibility of viable Creation Science can only be dismissed a priori based on personal belief, not objective fact.

            The problem with YEC is that the elements that are claimed to point to a 6 day creation 6000 years ago do not in fact do that. They, specifically, are in the vast majority simply 'not science'. And the people the push the claims at the top theoretically have the education that would allow them to understand the problems with what they are selling, which points to some form of self-deception or conscious/willful deception. These are the issues with YEC. And they do in fact belong in Nat Sci, as this is the forum on this site where people qualified to debate the 'science' in 'Creation Science' tend to hang out. Not to mention most of the other forums don't like their world sullied by the complexities and abrasiveness that tend to accompany vigorous scientific debate.

            Jim
            Take a double dose of my last post, O-Mudd.

            Jorge

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
              Good words, Jim.
              "Good words"???
              After that you want me to "chime in" here.
              May I ask what you've been snorting?

              P.S. This Jorge character should chime in here, don't you all think?
              You wouldn't be able to handle me, Santa. Plus, the fact is that I am readying myself for a lengthy work-related trip. I'm here until next week and then I'm gone until May 18-20th. Perhaps (no promises) I'll have some time to post a few things but, frankly, a "few things" wouldn't even put a dent into the barrage of falsehoods, misrepresentations, prejudices and ignorance that you people display in threads such as this one. Believe whatever you wish, I'd like to help -- I really would -- but (as I have learned from experience) that would require a gargantuan effort.

              Besides, and I've said this to you before, a person has to be RECEPTIVE in order to learn. If there is one thing that your numerous posts make abundantly clear -- i.e., 'the evidence indicates that' -- you are as receptive towards Biblical Creationism ("YEC") as Adolf Hitler was towards Judaism. IOW, it would be a total waste of my time.

              Lastly, don't take any of this personally - people like Rogue06, Oxmixmudd and others here on TWeb fall into exactly the same category as you do. In short, until you truly seek the truth regarding these matters, you won't find anything to rid you of your errors. Vaya con Dios.

              Jorge

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                I think the explanation is simply "Morton's Demon". This occurs in almost any area of divergent opinions and high emotion. It is not restricted to Christians or to YEC.
                I will not rule out the possibility that some "YECs" may employ the "demon" you speak of. That said, generally speaking you are vilifying Biblical Creationists ("YEC"). Hey, what else is new?

                At least you had the honesty to say that this "demon" is not restricted to any group. That is absolutely true. To me, a bona fide truth-seeker is a person that has recognized the existence of this "demon" and makes a conscientious effort to make certain that the "demon" does not get in the way of the truth. Such people are as rare as a flawless diamond.

                Jorge

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                  I think you will soon find that nobody will be able to write anything scientific on this topic.
                  Hmmm ... "scientific" ...

                  I'll go out on a limb here and hazard a guess : by "scientific" you mean that it fully complies with the reigning Materialistic paradigms such as "Evolution", "uniformitarianism" (as in uniformitarian geology, etc.), "Big Bang" and so on. Alternative views clashing with those paradigms are strictly verboten!

                  That is what you mean by "scientific", isn't it?

                  People such as yourself would have fit right in with Phlogiston Theory, Blood Humors and Epicycles.

                  Yeah, you're truly a "scientific" person, 1stfloor.

                  Bwahahahahahahaha ... sorry, I couldn't hold back any longer.

                  Jorge

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    Nonsense, untrue and a misrepresentation of reality.
                    You should know better after reading hundreds of my posts.
                    If you were Pinnochio, your nose would be dragging on the floor by now.

                    Jorge
                    I've been searching your hundreds of post. They don't answer any of the questions I posed, but rather tediously repeat the kind of non-answer you give (or don't give???) here.

                    K54

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      Hmmm ... "scientific" ...

                      I'll go out on a limb here and hazard a guess : by "scientific" you mean that it fully complies with the reigning Materialistic paradigms such as "Evolution", "uniformitarianism" (as in uniformitarian geology, etc.), "Big Bang" and so on. Alternative views clashing with those paradigms are strictly verboten!

                      That is what you mean by "scientific", isn't it?

                      People such as yourself would have fit right in with Phlogiston Theory, Blood Humors and Epicycles.

                      Yeah, you're truly a "scientific" person, 1stfloor.

                      Bwahahahahahahaha ... sorry, I couldn't hold back any longer.

                      Jorge
                      So then, what is YOUR definition of science, and how can that science be used to study the geologic, genetic, and astronomical records?

                      Please be explicit!

                      K54

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        I will not rule out the possibility that some "YECs" may employ the "demon" you speak of. That said, generally speaking you are vilifying Biblical Creationists ("YEC"). Hey, what else is new?

                        At least you had the honesty to say that this "demon" is not restricted to any group. That is absolutely true. To me, a bona fide truth-seeker is a person that has recognized the existence of this "demon" and makes a conscientious effort to make certain that the "demon" does not get in the way of the truth. Such people are as rare as a flawless diamond.

                        Jorge
                        How then is Morton's Demon applied to you? Do you ever say "They shall not pass" (a la P. Petain from the Battle of Verdun) to any verified observations of nature? How about for your Genesis interpretation? What does your gatekeeper keep out of your brain from an exegetical standpoint? You do realize you have to interpret the Genesis stories, correct? Surely you do?

                        K54

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          added P.S.

                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          "Good words"???
                          After that you want me to "chime in" here.
                          May I ask what you've been snorting?



                          You wouldn't be able to handle me, Santa. Plus, the fact is that I am readying myself for a lengthy work-related trip. I'm here until next week and then I'm gone until May 18-20th. Perhaps (no promises) I'll have some time to post a few things but, frankly, a "few things" wouldn't even put a dent into the barrage of falsehoods, misrepresentations, prejudices and ignorance that you people display in threads such as this one. Believe whatever you wish, I'd like to help -- I really would -- but (as I have learned from experience) that would require a gargantuan effort.

                          Besides, and I've said this to you before, a person has to be RECEPTIVE in order to learn. If there is one thing that your numerous posts make abundantly clear -- i.e., 'the evidence indicates that' -- you are as receptive towards Biblical Creationism ("YEC") as Adolf Hitler was towards Judaism. IOW, it would be a total waste of my time.

                          Lastly, don't take any of this personally - people like Rogue06, Oxmixmudd and others here on TWeb fall into exactly the same category as you do. In short, until you truly seek the truth regarding these matters, you won't find anything to rid you of your errors. Vaya con Dios.

                          Jorge
                          Jorge compares my attitude toward "Biblical Creationist" to the attitude of Hitler toward Jews. LOL!!!

                          Sorry, Jorge, I'm not ready for a holocaust quite yet.

                          Are you still afraid of "Big Words"? Heehee...

                          Perhaps during boring evenings in your hotel on your business trip you'll be able to cogitate more on the simple questions here and come up with some cogency in your replies.

                          K54

                          P.S. What was the topic of this thread again? Jorge's got me totally confused now.

                          P.P.S. So, I have to be "receptive" in order to learn? Hmm... Smacks of an excellent example of the Projection Fallacy.
                          Last edited by klaus54; 04-17-2014, 08:59 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                            How then is Morton's Demon applied to you? Do you ever say "They shall not pass" (a la P. Petain from the Battle of Verdun) to any verified observations of nature? How about for your Genesis interpretation? What does your gatekeeper keep out of your brain from an exegetical standpoint? You do realize you have to interpret the Genesis stories, correct? Surely you do?

                            K54
                            You may as well save yourself some typing K54. Jorge is well known as the board's self-appointed YEC buffoon. I can't think of a single person who takes his one-line drive-by vomiting seriously. Those who do pay him any attention usually just point and laugh.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                              You may as well save yourself some typing K54. Jorge is well known as the board's self-appointed YEC buffoon. I can't think of a single person who takes his one-line drive-by vomiting seriously. Those who do pay him any attention usually just point and laugh.
                              Still, it would nice to get SOMETHING out of him save implying that we're a bunch of dopes who could never understand.

                              The only teasing peek he gave was that whether or not dinosaurs went extinct is a "core" issue for him.

                              Oh, well. It makes one wonder why they bother having a Natural Science forum on a theology website.

                              K54

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                                I've been searching your hundreds of post. They don't answer any of the questions I posed, but rather tediously repeat the kind of non-answer you give (or don't give???) here.

                                K54
                                Uhhhh ... get a clue, Santa. I was referring to the 'old' Tweb in which I posted somewhere between 13,500 and 14,500 posts. Many (perhaps even most) of those posts were "just for fun" (sort of "answering the fools as deserved"). But even if just 5% of my posts were serious and substance-filled (i.e., 95% "throwaways") that means that I had somewhere around 700 posts that provided substantial answers to the clueless here at TWeb. THOSE 5% were the posts that I was referring to. Now do you get it? BTW, there were more than just 5% but I won't quibble.

                                Jorge

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 06:14 PM
                                1 response
                                10 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 07-22-2021, 07:50 AM
                                1 response
                                15 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 07-21-2021, 08:13 AM
                                13 responses
                                40 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Sparko, 07-20-2021, 06:52 AM
                                45 responses
                                138 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 07-18-2021, 12:17 PM
                                19 responses
                                69 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Working...
                                X