Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
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
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
-
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostShuny, That's basically what I want to get at. I'd like ardent YECs/Genesis literalists, who want to reconcile that view with science, (a Biblical Scientific Creationist?) to give some specifics of what their view is, both scientifically and exegetically. And, if possible, I'd like to avoid weasel words like "historical vs. operational" science or the new-to-me term "provincial" science.
K54
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostThe hush is easily explained because this thing is much simpler than you think. Y or O EC’s are people who think that Genesis is God’s diary. There is no more analysis to their position than that although they will occasionally make strenuous efforts to convince you that there is.
K54
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostFair enough, and fine with me. But only the non-YECs have responded, and if we agree to not harass them, they should have no problem. After all, it's supposed to be an issue near and dear to them, and one would think they'd fancy defending their theological, exegetical, and scientific positions in open forum.
So let's limit responses to YECs and (non-TE) OECs, and see what happens.
K54
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostThis should be limited to YEC (and maybe certain OECs?) in accordance with the OP. This does not appear to be a general 'free for all" on Creation Science.
So let's limit responses to YECs and (non-TE) OECs, and see what happens.
K54
Leave a comment:
-
This should be limited to YEC (and maybe certain OECs?) in accordance with the OP. This does not appear to be a general 'free for all" on Creation Science.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostWhat 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..
K54
Leave a comment:
-
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..
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostJorge claims that the KJV is the best translation but is quick to abandon it for others he usually deems inferior if it doesn't support his YEC POV. For instance in Psalm 104 some versions (including the KJV) describe the waters as moving while in others it describes the mountains that the water covered as moving. Jorge prefers the latter translation since he sees it as supporting YEC "Flood Geology" so at this point he readily tosses the KJV aside. This is a bit odd in that the psalm, long regarded as the Creation Psalm, is actually describing the creation here (although in very flowery, poetic language) and not the flood.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostIt's generally bad form to create a thread about somebody, or mention them in a thread, without giving them the courtesy of letting them know it's there. You can lead a horse to water, but not if you don't inform him in writing, first.
Back to the thread: I'd like SOMEONE to respond to SOMETHING. What's-his-face mentioned the nonsensical neologism "provincial science", and I would have liked to have him/her explain this notion in an "unprotected" thread.
No PM response from the-one-about-whom-we-must-not-speak yet.
Anyone up for discussing science and theology, or was this website just selling a bill of goods?
K54
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostDon't how to do that yet. I'm too provincial.
K54
P.S. Just figured it out, and done diddly did it!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostJorge claims that the KJV is the best translation but is quick to abandon it for others he usually deems inferior if it doesn't support his YEC POV. For instance in Psalm 104 some versions (including the KJV) describe the waters as moving while in others it describes the mountains that the water covered as moving. Jorge prefers the latter translation since he sees it as supporting YEC "Flood Geology" so at this point he readily tosses the KJV aside. This is a bit odd in that the psalm, long regarded as the Creation Psalm, is actually describing the creation here (although in very flowery, poetic language) and not the flood.
Did you like the photo of the "bumper sticker" I snapped yesterday?
K54
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostTry Jorge.
Roy
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: