|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/9/2008 1:12:27 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1943
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Glad you understand. So no more claiming that Creationist scientists publish in scholarly peer-reviewed science journals. cow, are you for real?! DanJ just cited an article by a creationist scientist published in a peer-reviewed journal and you babble on about scientific credentials. It's back to the pasture for you!
Isn't this just splitting hairs? I think we all know that what is actually meant/claimed is that Creationists don't publish in scholarly peer-reviewed journals articles which are directly relevant to YEC. Alzheimer's research is not related to YEC.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/9/2008 10:17:28 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Glad you understand. So no more claiming that Creationist scientists publish in scholarly peer-reviewed science journals. cow, are you for real?! DanJ just cited an article by a creationist scientist published in a peer-reviewed journal and you babble on about scientific credentials. It's back to the pasture for you!
Isn't this just splitting hairs? I think we all know that what is actually meant/claimed is that Creationists don't publish in scholarly peer-reviewed journals articles which are directly relevant to YEC. Alzheimer's research is not related to YEC.
-Dan.
That's because an article goes in journals that will accept the material being presented. A botany journal will NOT publish an article that opposes the fact that plants evolved from nonvascular to lower vascular to gymnosperms to angiosperms without presenting some theory as to how they could have EVOLVED (not were created on day 3). That kind of article would go in a CREATIONIST journal. Dr. Dewitt does research on Alzheimer's so his work goes in Alzheimer's journals and books. When he does work supporting Creation, his work goes into Creationist publications.
But you're right, it's now splitting hairs. This started as a common misunderstanding, and we all now understand how science journals work, and we'll all just stop saying that Creationists don't publish in scholarly peer-reviewed science journals.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/9/2008 10:45:19 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3959
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Glad you understand. So no more claiming that Creationist scientists publish in scholarly peer-reviewed science journals. cow, are you for real?! DanJ just cited an article by a creationist scientist published in a peer-reviewed journal and you babble on about scientific credentials. It's back to the pasture for you!
What, can't read? Creationist scientists are not publishing creationist research in any scholarly scientific journal.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/9/2008 10:46:26 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Glad you understand. So no more claiming that Creationist scientists publish in scholarly peer-reviewed science journals. cow, are you for real?! DanJ just cited an article by a creationist scientist published in a peer-reviewed journal and you babble on about scientific credentials. It's back to the pasture for you!
Isn't this just splitting hairs? I think we all know that what is actually meant/claimed is that Creationists don't publish in scholarly peer-reviewed journals articles which are directly relevant to YEC. Alzheimer's research is not related to YEC.
-Dan.
That's because an article goes in journals that will accept the material being presented. A botany journal will NOT publish an article that opposes the fact that plants evolved from nonvascular to lower vascular to gymnosperms to angiosperms without presenting some theory as to how they could have EVOLVED (not were created on day 3). That kind of article would go in a CREATIONIST journal. Dr. Dewitt does research on Alzheimer's so his work goes in Alzheimer's journals and books. When he does work supporting Creation, his work goes into Creationist publications.
But you're right, it's now splitting hairs. This started as a common misunderstanding, and we all now understand how science journals work, and we'll all just stop saying that Creationists don't publish in scholarly peer-reviewed science journals.
Well, the issue is, they could very easily publish in mainstream scientific journals. They'd just have to have a good paper to publish that puts forth a sound argument. You don't see many papers on astrology in scientific journals, is the establishment trying to censor astrologists? No, its rejecting pseudoscience, not practicing censorship.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/9/2008 12:16:01 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Glad you understand. So no more claiming that Creationist scientists publish in scholarly peer-reviewed science journals. cow, are you for real?! DanJ just cited an article by a creationist scientist published in a peer-reviewed journal and you babble on about scientific credentials. It's back to the pasture for you!
Isn't this just splitting hairs? I think we all know that what is actually meant/claimed is that Creationists don't publish in scholarly peer-reviewed journals articles which are directly relevant to YEC. Alzheimer's research is not related to YEC.
-Dan.
That's because an article goes in journals that will accept the material being presented. A botany journal will NOT publish an article that opposes the fact that plants evolved from nonvascular to lower vascular to gymnosperms to angiosperms without presenting some theory as to how they could have EVOLVED (not were created on day 3). That kind of article would go in a CREATIONIST journal. Dr. Dewitt does research on Alzheimer's so his work goes in Alzheimer's journals and books. When he does work supporting Creation, his work goes into Creationist publications.
But you're right, it's now splitting hairs. This started as a common misunderstanding, and we all now understand how science journals work, and we'll all just stop saying that Creationists don't publish in scholarly peer-reviewed science journals.
Well, the issue is, they could very easily publish in mainstream scientific journals. They'd just have to have a good paper to publish that puts forth a sound argument. You don't see many papers on astrology in scientific journals, is the establishment trying to censor astrologists? No, its rejecting pseudoscience, not practicing censorship.
Right, so let's stop using the argument and move on.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/9/2008 5:22:16 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3145
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I see no reason to think that Jesus' use of Genesis to give an answer to a question regarding marriage supports a literalist interpretation of Genesis in any way, and really just begs the question. Of course you "see no reason" to accept YEC - it's against your religion!
quote:
The whole purpose of Genesis is providing a fundamental, but extremely important, understanding of humanity, their condition, their reality, and their purpose and ends in life. So creation in God's Image as He states in His authoritative, inerrant Word is not "fundamental" to Christianity? Whatever...
quote:
The Bible is chock full of literary fables, analogies, metaphors, parables, myths etc Yes, and these are clearly identifiable by literary genre, grammatical usage, original intent and other tools of correct exegesis. Genesis 1-11 is not mythological fable by any literary analysis. Cite a scholar who proves otherwise!
quote:
Taking the mythology of Genesis as such I believe reveals a deeper understanding of what is attempting to be stated. No, taking Genesis as mythology abrogates the factual reliability of the only Eyewitness to the the entire event! This is deeper understanding? Count me out!
quote:
This I see happening when I read drmonkey state that we must ask ourselves, are we going to trust man or God? Then by all means, Nothingman, please share with us the scientific observations of those people who observed with their "sensory experience" the origin of H sapiens. I will gladly believe their "science" when you produce it. Until then, I will more gladly believe the Word of the One Who created them!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/9/2008 6:12:20 PM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 134
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
its easy to pick out individual sentences and then give individual answers, but it does injustice to the totality of a message. We simply disagree and all we've doing is begging the question so I'm done discussing this with you. I willl say that I don't think there would be ANY evidence that would ever lead you away from a strictly literalist account of the Bible.
Also, the only eye-witness did not write Genesis. And the majority of theologians do not read Genesis as literal, if you're trying to bring scholars onto your side of the argument.
Lastly, I recommend you read Beyond Tradegy by Reinhold Niebuhr, especially the first chapter...I can post some if you would like why reading Genesis literally is a limited understanding of the message, a one-dimentional understanding...
Anyways, good luck in your crusade.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/11/2008 6:39:27 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3145
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I willl say that I don't think there would be ANY evidence that would ever lead you away from a strictly literalist account of the Bible. We simply disagree - correct exegesis of Scripture is NOT a strictly literalist account of the Bible.
quote:
Also, the only eye-witness did not write Genesis. We simply disagree - Genesis is God's Word, divinely inspired by God.
quote:
And the majority of theologians do not read Genesis as literal, We simply disagree - the majority of Hebrew scholars recognize all of Genesis as historical narrative prose. How they (mis)interpret that is their business.
quote:
I can post some if you would like why reading Genesis literally is a limited understanding of the message, a one-dimentional understanding We simply disagree - if you would like, I can share with you from many YEC theologians why reading Genesis correctly is vital to the proper understanding of essential Christian doctrine. My bet is that you're no more interested in their opinions than I am in Niebuhr's.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/11/2008 11:29:54 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
We simply disagree - the majority of Hebrew scholars recognize all of Genesis as historical narrative prose. How they (mis)interpret that is their business.
Wrong. Your only two options are allegorical/symbolic interpretation, or the Bible is just flat out wrong. There is no third option that is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/11/2008 11:36:58 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7843
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Wrong. Your only two options are allegorical/symbolic interpretation, or the Bible is just flat out wrong. There is no third option that is correct.
Not neccesarily; Genesis can be a literal record of what was revealed to the author (Moses), that while not attempting to present itself as a scientific record, still is intended to be regarded as a sufficient record of what caused the universe, life, and mankind to come to exist.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/11/2008 7:22:39 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3145
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Your only two options are allegorical/symbolic interpretation, or the Bible is just flat out wrong. Those are the only options for someone like you who holds man's scientism in magisterial position over God's Word. I am not so incorrectly limited in my options! The Bible is always flat out right and I will find proper interpretations of scientific evidence that are congruent with It.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/11/2008 11:42:17 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Not neccesarily; Genesis can be a literal record of what was revealed to the author (Moses), that while not attempting to present itself as a scientific record, still is intended to be regarded as a sufficient record of what caused the universe, life, and mankind to come to exist.
If I understand you right, that would really fall under the umbrella of what I consider allegorical, even though the words would be exactly as they were divinely dictated.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/11/2008 11:50:06 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Your only two options are allegorical/symbolic interpretation, or the Bible is just flat out wrong. Those are the only options for someone like you who holds man's scientism in magisterial position over God's Word. I am not so incorrectly limited in my options! The Bible is always flat out right and I will find proper interpretations of scientific evidence that are congruent with It.
Is not all of God's creation his word? If we can confidently say the world is 4.9 billion years old according to all the evidence He left us (and obviously meant us to see), would it not be exactly the same as denying Gods word to reject what the evidence tells us? I think so. To deny the evidence is to choose not to know the mind of God.
To quote Ken Miller, a biologist, Roman Catholic, and staunch opponent to ID and creationism:
“the Heavens do declare the glory of God (Psalms 19:1), as does the increasingly rich and detailed scientific account of our evolutionary origins."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/12/2008 3:30:54 AM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 134
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
As a history student I think one day I would like to explore and explain the root of the concept of "Biblical inerrancy". It would be as fascinating as it is misguided.
Why do people hold the Bible in such high regard as to believe it is inerrent in every nuance? It is written by men, and so with everything that man puts his hand to it is liable to a degree of error. How does one explain a simple error such as the account of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, for example? In Luke it says, "He went down with them and stood on a level place" while in Matthew it says, "Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down." Lets just get picky here. The two different accounts of his sermon give an oppositionaly and contradictory account of how he delievered his sermon. One says he went down, the other says he went up; one says he stood, the other says he sat; one says he was on a level plain, the other on a mountainside. Now before we go please stop me if anyone is able to hold these two passages together and say that they are not contradicting eachother. Anyone?
There are a couple way we can understand the Bible. One, like drmonkey, we can read it like the Muslims read the Qur'an, where one simply puts quotation marks at the beginning of Genesis and the end of Revelation and everything in between IS God's literal verbatum Word. Case closed. Or we take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 for what it says: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work", whereas Scripture is inspired by God and useful for what? For teaching, correcting, rightousness etc, ie those things that pertain to our faith, our heart, our relationship with God. Not science lessons, not math lessons, nor soccer tips or good interior design. Its a spiritual manifesto, inspired by the Holy Spirit but written by men and so necessarily delievered through rose-coloured glasses. Can anyone here not deny that the Bible is laden with cultural baggage from a by-gone era? Is this God's contribution, or man's? Is God's actuality really subject to cultural custom ? In other words, if the Bible was God's literal Word, do you think it would actually be expressed in the particular nuance or a particular culture? No, God works through us, and in working through us the Good shines so bright such that we recognize God's good working through him and seperate it from the weakness of man through whom God works. The same applies to Scripture. Bring it back to the Sermon of the Mount. When reading the two different accounts. what do you believe and think is happening? If this is God's perfect, inerrant word, why would God give two opposing accounts on what happened? Surely he be able to be a little better of journalist no? So either God made a typo OR maybe we can view the accounts for what it is, two accounts written by two different men, one or both of whom got a detail wrong. And I can live with that. I still know God's message, and God still works through me on a daily basis.
I'm trying to shake your faith in the Bible. It isn't God. God is greater than the sum of the Bible. I would love to destroy your faith in the Bible, only because I believe it would strengthen your faith in God.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/12/2008 9:28:33 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3145
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Is not all of God's creation his word? If we can (and obviously meant us to see), would it not be exactly the same as denying Gods word to rconfidently say the world is 4.9 billion years old according to all the evidence He left useject what the evidence tells us? I think so. To deny the evidence is to choose not to know the mind of God. Sorry, drj, nature is NOT the 67th book of the Bible. There is a huge theological difference between the special revelation of God in His inerrant and authoritative Word and His general revelation in creation, so easily misrepresented by faulty human science. And no, we cannot "confidently say the world is 4.9 billion years old according to all the evidence He left us". This is the requisite fantasy of those whose agendas demand zillions of years of random mutations through which natural selection can replace God as creative force. I think not! To interpret the evidence contrary to the Eyewitness account of God is to call Him deceptive at best and a liar at worst.
quote:
To quote Ken Miller, a biologist, Roman Catholic, and staunch opponent to ID and creationism:
“the Heavens do declare the glory of God (Psalms 19:1), as does the increasingly rich and detailed scientific account of our evolutionary origins." To quote Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God, Agent of creation, and staunch proponent of Truth:
"At the beginning of creation, God made them male and female".
So drj, you can side with Miller. I know Whom I will side with!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/12/2008 9:51:55 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
And no, we cannot "confidently say the world is 4.9 billion years old according to all the evidence He left us". This is the requisite fantasy of those whose agendas demand zillions of years of random mutations...
The age of the earth was determined through methods and disciplines entirely unrelated to evolution. That determination had nothing to do with fantasies or agendas.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/12/2008 12:22:31 PM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 134
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Sorry, drj, nature is NOT the 67th book of the Bible. There is a huge theological difference between the special revelation of God in His inerrant and authoritative Word and His general revelation in creation, so easily misrepresented by faulty human science. And no, we cannot "confidently say the world is 4.9 billion years old according to all the evidence He left us". This is the requisite fantasy of those whose agendas demand zillions of years of random mutations through which natural selection can replace God as creative force. I think not! To interpret the evidence contrary to the Eyewitness account of God is to call Him deceptive at best and a liar at worst.
You know how the Bible came about right? It didn't drop from the sky as it is now. There were councils of men that collected what they could concerning Christian witness. There are some other books out there not included in the 66, but completely relevent. What about the Catholic's Bible, for example? Are we using God's innerant, incomplete word? How on earth will I still have faith? I mean faith evidently is based on pages of a book and not my heart so yikes, I'm in a little bit of a pickle here...
As for the age of the earth. Yes we can confidently say the earth is that old, just as we can confidently say the tree is 200 years old when its rings reveal that. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you are? To you science is a conspiracy theory, deliberatly spreading falsehood for some ulterior, base motive. The fact that you believe that only points to your capacity and willingness to distort truth.
Why do we even have science? I mean, answer me this. Do you think we should just teach Genesis as science? Its got it all laid out nice and neat, we don't really have to go through all this bother of exploring the earth. Such a waste of time...
I really just hope you keep your expressions to these forums and are not vocal within the general public. Its people like you who spread these false interpretations that make many a thinking person completely shut off from the Bible as a whole.
< Message edited by Nothingman -- 4/12/2008 12:31:03 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/12/2008 1:27:40 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7843
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
If I understand you right, that would really fall under the umbrella of what I consider allegorical, even though the words would be exactly as they were divinely dictated.
What is your definition of allegorical?
In this case literal means exactly as the author (Moses) saw it.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/12/2008 4:00:12 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: Nothingman
quote:
You know how the Bible came about right? It didn't drop from the sky as it is now. There were councils of men that collected what they could concerning Christian witness. There are some other books out there not included in the 66, but completely relevent. What about the Catholic's Bible, for example? Are we using God's innerant, incomplete word? How on earth will I still have faith? I mean faith evidently is based on pages of a book and not my heart so yikes, I'm in a little bit of a pickle here...
...Its people like you who spread these false interpretations that make many a thinking person completely shut off from the Bible as a whole.
Nothingman, people are going to shut themselves off from the Bible if they are going to shut themselves off from the Bible. All they need is an excuse. God will deal with them based on the intentions of their hearts. We only need to take the Gospel to all men, and let them find and treasure their excuses if they so choose. As for this idea that the word of God is fallible, I think it's good to chase that topic because it does have something to do with the concept of Theistic Evolution. Can we put quotes on the first verse of Genesis and close-quotes at the last verse of Revelation? Kinda. It would be a good idea to read verses 12 through 21 of the first chapter of second Peter. Peter was trying to convince his readers that when he was gone, that they would have a written account of what he was trying to teach them, and that it was not his or any other man's word, but the word of his God and their God.
quote:
2 Peter 1:18 When this voice was conveyed from heaven, we ourselves heard it, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 1:19 Moreover, we possess the prophetic word as an altogether reliable thing. You do well if you pay attention to this as you would to a light shining in a murky place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 1:20 Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, 1:21 for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
I would encourage you to read the whole chapter to get an idea of what he was trying to convey. This word of God is NOT the fallible word of men trying to get what God is trying to tell them right. If it was, it would not be the word of God. It is demonstrably divine in origin, and is trustworthy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/12/2008 7:30:48 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3145
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm in a little bit of a pickle here... Yes, you've demonstrated that on several occasions.
quote:
Yes we can confidently say the earth is that old, just as we can confidently say the tree is 200 years old when its rings reveal that. Actually, dating by tree rings is likewise inconclusive in many cases. The fact is that one can "confidently say 2 + 2 = 5" and yet it's still not true regardless of the level of human confidence.
quote:
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you are? To you science is a conspiracy theory, deliberatly spreading falsehood for some ulterior, base motive. The fact that you believe that only points to your capacity and willingness to distort truth. You don't know me from Adam's housecat, Nothingman! I have spent the last 38 years of my life in the study, application, and appreciation of science in the course of college studies, medical school education and training, and practice of clinical medicine and research. To me, real science is only possible to fully understand and apply because the Loving God of the universe created it to be understood and applied by us, His created children. The godless religion of humanistic naturalism has hijacked real science and cares not one gram for the truth of God's created reality. Scientism is distortion, deception, and demagoguery at its worst!
quote:
Why do we even have science? I mean, answer me this. Do you think we should just teach Genesis as science? Its got it all laid out nice and neat, we don't really have to go through all this bother of exploring the earth. Such a waste of time... Do you really not comprehend the impact creationism had on the history and development of modern scientific methodology? Why don't you do a little research into the lives of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Bacon, Agassiz, Cuvier, Pasteur, Faraday, Maxwell, and those are just a few of the God-fearing, Bible-believing scientists I remember off the top of my head. Do you think they thought it was a waste of time to explore God's wonderful creation?
quote:
I really just hope you keep your expressions to these forums and are not vocal within the general public. Its people like you who spread these false interpretations that make many a thinking person completely shut off from the Bible as a whole. Oh believe me, Nothingman, I plan to get even more "vocal within the general public" given the pathetic state of Scriptural knowledge and even awareness of simple logic demonstrated by the brainwashed children and youth our humanistic public educational system. Posting on these forums for almost two years has led me to first-hand demonstration of 1 Cor 3:18-20.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/13/2008 9:26:31 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Do you really not comprehend the impact creationism had on the history and development of modern scientific methodology? Why don't you do a little research into the lives of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Bacon, Agassiz, Cuvier, Pasteur, Faraday, Maxwell, and those are just a few of the God-fearing, Bible-believing scientists I remember off the top of my head. Do you think they thought it was a waste of time to explore God's wonderful creation?
In these cases, creationism led them astray, and caused them to draw false conclusions... especially in Newton's case, who could only account for oddities in planet orbits by acts of God... that is until Einstein came along with relativity.
So no... creationism wasn't much use to us after all.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/14/2008 3:39:02 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Do you really not comprehend the impact creationism had on the history and development of modern scientific methodology? Why don't you do a little research into the lives of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Bacon, Agassiz, Cuvier, Pasteur, Faraday, Maxwell, and those are just a few of the God-fearing, Bible-believing scientists I remember off the top of my head. Do you think they thought it was a waste of time to explore God's wonderful creation?
In these cases, creationism led them astray, and caused them to draw false conclusions... especially in Newton's case, who could only account for oddities in planet orbits by acts of God... that is until Einstein came along with relativity.
So no... creationism wasn't much use to us after all.
You have got to be kidding me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/14/2008 3:59:23 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3145
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Unfortunately, DanJ, these folks are dead serious. Amazing how evolutionism can brainwash them so! I would have never thought that I'd see so much ignorance in the face of so much intelligence on a Christian discusson board - what an eye-opener! It gives a whole new meaning to 1 Cor 1:20 and 3:19.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
