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

Question ...

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

  • #16
    I am a theist and believe God Created by natural methods.

    God is not an engineer and does not design,
    God is a Creator and Creates.
    Ancient myths and legends are a product of the human mind.
    Natural science is a witness of how God Creates.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-19-2016, 07:39 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
      This is a common YEC claim, of course. I have two problems with it: 1) it is fundamentally wrong-headed, and 2) it conflicts with Scripture.

      Your claim is wrong-headed in that it makes the a priori assumption of conflict between science and Scripture, pits the two against one another, then discounts general revelation to resolve the perceived conflicts. One could take exactly the same approach between the OT and the NT: the OT was incomplete, providing an imperfect glimpse of truth; the NT is more complete. So whenever we see an apparent conflict between OT and NT, we should just discount what the OT says. But I don't think many Christians (even YECs) would take this position. Instead, we make the a priori assumption of consistency (not conflict) between the OT and the NT, and we seek to interpret both in a way to resolve the conflicts. If we truly believe that God is the author of both general and special revelation, we should take the same approach for perceived conflicts between science and faith.

      Your claim conflicts with Scripture in that it says that general revelation is unclear and misleading. But Paul said otherwise (emphasis mine below):
      Source: Rom 1:19-20, NET


      because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse.

      © Copyright Original Source


      Paul said that God revealed truth through general revelation, and that this truth is revealed plainly and clearly. The reason that people reject this revelation is not related to its clarity, but to man's fallen nature. The problem is with man, not with general revelation. This fallen nature affects man's acceptance of special revelation just as much as it does his acceptance of general revelation.
      There was a thread on the old Tweb about the Two Book approach, general revelation through His creation and special revelation through Scripture. I might have to start a thread on some of the history of that.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
        This is a common YEC claim, of course. I have two problems with it: 1) it is fundamentally wrong-headed, and 2) it conflicts with Scripture.

        Your claim is wrong-headed in that it makes the a priori assumption of conflict between science and Scripture, pits the two against one another, then discounts general revelation to resolve the perceived conflicts. One could take exactly the same approach between the OT and the NT: the OT was incomplete, providing an imperfect glimpse of truth; the NT is more complete. So whenever we see an apparent conflict between OT and NT, we should just discount what the OT says. But I don't think many Christians (even YECs) would take this position. Instead, we make the a priori assumption of consistency (not conflict) between the OT and the NT, and we seek to interpret both in a way to resolve the conflicts. If we truly believe that God is the author of both general and special revelation, we should take the same approach for perceived conflicts between science and faith.

        Your claim conflicts with Scripture in that it says that general revelation is unclear and misleading. But Paul said otherwise (emphasis mine below):
        Source: Rom 1:19-20, NET


        because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse.

        © Copyright Original Source


        Paul said that God revealed truth through general revelation, and that this truth is revealed plainly and clearly. The reason that people reject this revelation is not related to its clarity, but to man's fallen nature. The problem is with man, not with general revelation. This fallen nature affects man's acceptance of special revelation just as much as it does his acceptance of general revelation.
        I have a problem with this creative bookkeeping trying mend the problems between the Old Testament, New Testament, and th emodern world. The majority of the church fathers, and the authors of the NT saw no problems and believed in a literal Genesis and harmony between the OT and NT.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
          "Chance" in a mathematical or scientific sense does not preclude God from directing the outcome. I can't explain how this works scientifically; there are no "hidden variables" in the science which God can use. But God transcends science. Thus we can have real chance controlled by an omniscient God.

          Source: Prov 16:33


          The lot is cast into the lap,
          But its every decision is from the LORD. (NASB)

          The dice are thrown into the lap,
          but their every decision is from the LORD. (NET)

          © Copyright Original Source

          Perhaps you did not understand what I had written (the quote that you responded to).

          'Chance' does not exist from God's perspective, only from man's. Stated differently, the existence of 'chance' is only an illusion created from ignorance. Since God is not ignorant of anything, there is never an element of 'chance' for God.

          Therefore, logically, God's creation did not employ "real chance" in any way but rather absolute certainty. God does not have to direct things through 'chance' because there is no 'chance' for God.

          All of that is fine and good but it sidesteps the largest, most serious theological obstacle (from the Bible's perspective) to giga-years: pain, disease, suffering and death BEFORE Adam's sin. Again, people like Dembski recognized this and this is why they sought an "answer". In the case of Dembski the "answer" was to invoke "retroactive sin".

          Other OECs (as well as TEs) concocted other rescuing hypotheses. The funny thing is that NONE of these concoctions are necessary if only the Word is taken as it is plainly written! It's what I had stated before: once a lie is told then another lie must be created to support the first and then another to support the second and another for the third ... ad nauseum. A domino effect inevitably results. And that is precisely what one observes in OEC/TE theology - layer upon layer of concoctions and lies.

          Jorge

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Roy View Post
            Emphasis mine: So the ID movement did exactly what KB said they did: promote ID as pure science in some circumstances, but as religious in others.

            'Intelligent deign' is a sham, it exists purely to disguise creationism, and Jorge the welcher is too stupid to realise that the ID leaders were hiding their religious motives, and that he has fallen for the propaganda. .
            ................... ......... IGNORED on the grounds of stupidity and intellectual dishonesty! .......

            Jorge

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
              This is a common YEC claim, of course. I have two problems with it: 1) it is fundamentally wrong-headed, and 2) it conflicts with Scripture.

              Your claim is wrong-headed in that it makes the a priori assumption of conflict between science and Scripture, pits the two against one another, then discounts general revelation to resolve the perceived conflicts. One could take exactly the same approach between the OT and the NT: the OT was incomplete, providing an imperfect glimpse of truth; the NT is more complete. So whenever we see an apparent conflict between OT and NT, we should just discount what the OT says. But I don't think many Christians (even YECs) would take this position. Instead, we make the a priori assumption of consistency (not conflict) between the OT and the NT, and we seek to interpret both in a way to resolve the conflicts. If we truly believe that God is the author of both general and special revelation, we should take the same approach for perceived conflicts between science and faith.

              Your claim conflicts with Scripture in that it says that general revelation is unclear and misleading. But Paul said otherwise (emphasis mine below):
              Source: Rom 1:19-20, NET


              because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse.

              © Copyright Original Source


              Paul said that God revealed truth through general revelation, and that this truth is revealed plainly and clearly. The reason that people reject this revelation is not related to its clarity, but to man's fallen nature. The problem is with man, not with general revelation. This fallen nature affects man's acceptance of special revelation just as much as it does his acceptance of general revelation.
              With all due respect, you need to cease and desist reading and interpreting things as you want to in order to serve your personal agenda. There is nothing wrong with the General Revelation BUT we see as though through a dark glass -- I had made that point previously. The reason for this is because we are in a fallen state and there is no way around that for now. That is why we should not ever make the mistake of elevating our natural observations and theories based on the General Revelation over what God has revealed to us in the Special Revelation. Yet, that is precisely what TEs/OECs constantly do - Evolution and giga-years invariably 'trump' Genesis. Though that is denied and indignation is expressed, the proof is in the pudding.

              To wit: The Universal Flood account in Genesis 6:9-9:17 is fairly simple and straightforward language. So, what do the vast majority of TEs and OECs believe about that account? How many rescuing hypotheses have they fabricated in order to dismiss the "simple and straightforward" account in Genesis? And all of these shenanigans are aimed primarily at allowing them to retain Evolution and giga-years - Genesis is invariably trumped.

              No, absolutely NOT - I do NOT "assume a conflict between science and Scripture" nor do I "pit the two against each other". What you're doing is attributing to me the typical lying propaganda of TEs and OECs against Biblical Creationists. The same applies to your accusations regarding the OT and NT. We Biblical Creationists uphold a total unified harmony between the OT and NT. The Bible - God's Word - is a single book composed of 66 'sub-books'. It doesn't get any more harmonious than that.

              Jorge
              Last edited by Jorge; 06-20-2016, 06:37 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                I am not against ID per se, in that to believe God crated the uinverse is to believe that the universe is designd. But what goes by tends to be more of a 'God of the gaps' approach that looks for constructs that can't be explained with current theory, or that, based on current and necessarily crude assessments of probabilities appear naturally impossible. This kind of approach has failed over and over again and tends to assume God's original design was insufficient to become what He intended without explicite intervention - an assumption that may not be true.

                And to be specific to the ID that is typically opposed, it's ideas have been shown to be flawed, and in some cases such as the attempts to change the definition of science, intrinsically hostile to good science.

                Personally however, I am very much against the sort of witch hunt mentality that want to disallow any discussion of ID concepts in a classroom.


                Jim
                There's really no 'witch hunt' when it comes to ID.

                Opponents of ID simply want to preserve the foundations of science and not redefine it in the name of a metaphysical concept.

                ID proponents didn't advocate their ideas being taught in a philosophy class room, they advocated them being taught in a science class room - which is a different game, with different rules. If they had wanted to be in a philosophy class of some kind nobody would have objected or cared. But in science there is a specific methodology that has to be in an idea for it be considered scientific at all. Any idea in science from Newtonian mechanics, Relativity, Cell theory, Atomic theory, and every other idea in it's history had to pay it's dues by winning the community of scholars. ID/Creationism has not done that, and so allowing it to be taught in a science class room is to introduce something totally alien to it's principles.

                That's not a witch hunt, that's standing up for education.
                Last edited by Sea of red; 06-20-2016, 06:43 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                  Paul said that God revealed truth through general revelation, and that this truth is revealed plainly and clearly.
                  vs.

                  Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  There is nothing wrong with the General Revelation BUT we see as though through a dark glass -- I had made that point previously.
                  So, which is it?
                  "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    ................... ......... IGNORED on the grounds of stupidity and intellectual dishonesty! .......

                    Jorge
                    Just to clarify: Roy's post was ignored because of Jorge's stupidity and intellectual dishonesty.

                    You're welcome.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                      There's really no 'witch hunt' when it comes to ID.

                      Opponents of ID simply want to preserve the foundations of science and not redefine it in the name of a metaphysical concept.

                      ID proponents didn't advocate their ideas being taught in a philosophy class room, they advocated them being taught in a science class room - which is a different game, with different rules. If they had wanted to be in a philosophy class of some kind nobody would have objected or cared. But in science there is a specific methodology that has to be in an idea for it be considered scientific at all. Any idea in science from Newtonian mechanics, Relativity, Cell theory, Atomic theory, and every other idea in it's history had to pay it's dues by winning the community of scholars. ID/Creationism has not done that, and so allowing it to be taught in a science class room is to introduce something totally alien to it's principles.

                      That's not a witch hunt, that's standing up for education.
                      Not that I expect for you to understand and/or accept what I'm about to write but that's okay, others will.

                      It IS a witch hunt and it's one of the worst kinds because it is hypocritical. You say that you do not want science redefined in the name of a metaphysical concept YET THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT YOU PEOPLE HAVE DONE AND CONTINUE TO DO!!!

                      Materialism - as anyone that has taken Philosophy 101 knows - is a metaphysical stance incapable of ever being empirically proven. Furthermore, there is a huge amount of evidence that does not support Materialism.

                      All that said and known, how do you people define science? As we all know, you define it solely as if Materialism were a proven fact, namely, that mass, energy and physical laws are able to explain and account for everything: life, consciousness, emotions, ... everything!

                      Then, you shamelessly take that METAPHYSIC, you label it "science", and then force-ram it down everyone's throat in the name of "education".

                      To top things off, you employ the blatantly dishonest tactic of keeping everything else out of the "science" classroom so that ONLY your metaphysic remains and does so without being threatened or challenged. Yeah, it's impossible to lose if you have no opposition, right?

                      Then, you justify such dishonest actions by saying, "We want to keep only science in the classroom." Yeah, "science" as defined by who? Re-read the above for the answer to that question.

                      Go try to bamboozle young, inexperienced children, SeaRed ... ya ain't fooling me.

                      Jorge

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                        vs.

                        So, which is it?
                        Actually, it's both.

                        If (IF!) we were not in a Fallen state, we would not be seeing the general revelation as though through a dark glass.
                        We would be seeing God's truth plainly and clearly.
                        But in our Fallen state we do NOT see anything plainly and clearly.

                        IOW, it's not that it isn't plain and clear (it is!); it's that we cannot see it plainly and clearly.

                        God does not lie nor does He obfuscate things. We are totally to blame: sin in, clarity out.

                        Jorge

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          Not that I expect for you to understand and/or accept what I'm about to write but that's okay, others will.

                          It IS a witch hunt and it's one of the worst kinds because it is hypocritical. You say that you do not want science redefined in the name of a metaphysical concept YET THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT YOU PEOPLE HAVE DONE AND CONTINUE TO DO!!!

                          Materialism - as anyone that has taken Philosophy 101 knows - is a metaphysical stance incapable of ever being empirically proven. Furthermore, there is a huge amount of evidence that does not support Materialism.

                          All that said and known, how do you people define science? As we all know, you define it solely as if Materialism were a proven fact, namely, that mass, energy and physical laws are able to explain and account for everything: life, consciousness, emotions, ... everything!

                          Then, you shamelessly take that METAPHYSIC, you label it "science", and then force-ram it down everyone's throat in the name of "education".

                          To top things off, you employ the blatantly dishonest tactic of keeping everything else out of the "science" classroom so that ONLY your metaphysic remains and does so without being threatened or challenged. Yeah, it's impossible to lose if you have no opposition, right?

                          Then, you justify such dishonest actions by saying, "We want to keep only science in the classroom." Yeah, "science" as defined by who? Re-read the above for the answer to that question.

                          Go try to bamboozle young, inexperienced children, SeaRed ... ya ain't fooling me.

                          Jorge
                          You could end the whole discussion by providing one verified instance of supernatural intervention anywhere in the physical, material world. But alas, you can't.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                            Materialism - as anyone that has taken Philosophy 101 knows - is a metaphysical stance incapable of ever being empirically proven. Furthermore, there is a huge amount of evidence that does not support Materialism.
                            Let me guess - you keep all that evidene in the same vault you keep your evidence for a 6000 year old earth and a literal Noah's Flood.

                            All that said and known, how do you people define science? As we all know, you define it solely as if Materialism were a proven fact, namely, that mass, energy and physical laws are able to explain and account for everything: life, consciousness, emotions, ... everything!

                            Then, you shamelessly take that METAPHYSIC, you label it "science", and then force-ram it down everyone's throat in the name of "education".

                            To top things off, you employ the blatantly dishonest tactic of keeping everything else out of the "science" classroom so that ONLY your metaphysic remains and does so without being threatened or challenged. Yeah, it's impossible to lose if you have no opposition, right?

                            Then, you justify such dishonest actions by saying, "We want to keep only science in the classroom." Yeah, "science" as defined by who? Re-read the above for the answer to that question.
                            I'd be quite interested to hear how we'd do science if we had to allow for the undetectable intervention of a supernatural entity every time we did a scientific experiment. Let's hear your methodology.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                              There's really no 'witch hunt' when it comes to ID.

                              Opponents of ID simply want to preserve the foundations of science and not redefine it in the name of a metaphysical concept.

                              ID proponents didn't advocate their ideas being taught in a philosophy class room, they advocated them being taught in a science class room - which is a different game, with different rules. If they had wanted to be in a philosophy class of some kind nobody would have objected or cared. But in science there is a specific methodology that has to be in an idea for it be considered scientific at all. Any idea in science from Newtonian mechanics, Relativity, Cell theory, Atomic theory, and every other idea in it's history had to pay it's dues by winning the community of scholars. ID/Creationism has not done that, and so allowing it to be taught in a science class room is to introduce something totally alien to it's principles.

                              That's not a witch hunt, that's standing up for education.
                              Not really. There have been cases where a teacher discussed ID because students were specifically curious, asking questions. There is at least one case I remember (but not the specifics) where a teacher was using ID as an example of pseudo-science and discussing it from that standpoint and he/she was STILL fried up for dinner. That is the kind of thing I consider 'witch hunt'. When an idea is actually censored, it can't even be discussed to show what is wrong with it or its current implementation. Or what would be required for it to be a legitimate idea, such as our discussion here.

                              I remember being in high school and we discussed a lot of ideas because we were curious as students and it was interesting and useful to be able to banter about ideas and discuss their merit. It seems that is no longer an acceptable activity - and I consider it a loss.

                              Jim
                              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                                With all due respect, you need to cease and desist reading and interpreting things as you want to in order to serve your personal agenda. There is nothing wrong with the General Revelation BUT we see as though through a dark glass -- I had made that point previously. The reason for this is because we are in a fallen state and there is no way around that for now. That is why we should not ever make the mistake of elevating our natural observations and theories based on the General Revelation over what God has revealed to us in the Special Revelation. Yet, that is precisely what TEs/OECs constantly do - Evolution and giga-years invariably 'trump' Genesis. Though that is denied and indignation is expressed, the proof is in the pudding.

                                To wit: The Universal Flood account in Genesis 6:9-9:17 is fairly simple and straightforward language. So, what do the vast majority of TEs and OECs believe about that account? How many rescuing hypotheses have they fabricated in order to dismiss the "simple and straightforward" account in Genesis? And all of these shenanigans are aimed primarily at allowing them to retain Evolution and giga-years - Genesis is invariably trumped.

                                No, absolutely NOT - I do NOT "assume a conflict between science and Scripture" nor do I "pit the two against each other". What you're doing is attributing to me the typical lying propaganda of TEs and OECs against Biblical Creationists. The same applies to your accusations regarding the OT and NT. We Biblical Creationists uphold a total unified harmony between the OT and NT. The Bible - God's Word - is a single book composed of 66 'sub-books'. It doesn't get any more harmonious than that.

                                Jorge
                                The most dishonest thing you do Jorge is to over and over again denigrate the individuals trying to have a conversation with you. Whenever you have a disagreement, you almost always (if not always) say something derogatory about their motives. And you consistently, over and over again, try to make the case that the ONLY reason you and they disagree is because THEY are being dishonest and motivated by something other than a desire to understand and know the truth.

                                It's really a low blow tactic, and says a very great deal about your character. A character that could not figure out that diploma mill degree wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on. A character that can stand behind a paper on Asteroid impacts that you know is not legit. And a character that would make a bet and then welch on it. And yet you constantly try to foist your own miserably low character onto those around you. Over and over again.


                                Jim
                                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X