by hooberus 207 Replies latest watchtower bible
Many evolutionists also have an a priori belief system- philosophic naturalism. This philosophy basically limits evolutionists to only allow naturalistic theories of origins to be considered.
Such a belief structure creates a bias in origins research. And is probably the reason for comments like:
?Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic'
Hello,
1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
This is an example, pasted from a Creationist website earlier on this thread, that highlights an a priori viewpoint. It was followed by a score of similar viewpoints and clearly shows why Creationists will never understand the processes of true science. They need to bend all evidence to meet their a priori viewpoints.
As Science is an essential search for truth with future conclusions served by tested theory, it is a far more honest approach to the subject.
Best regards - HS
As Science is an essential search for truth with future conclusions served by tested theory, it is a far more honest approach to the subject.
As the ?rules? of science are now defined, creation is forbidden as a conclusion?even if true. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1135.asp
Hooberus,
As the ?rules? of science are now defined, creation is forbidden as a conclusion?even if true.
Science has discounted, not forbidden Creationism. The reason for this is that enough evidence exists to show that the creation of mankind around six-thousand years ago, somewhere within a six day twenty-four hour per day period during which the earth and life upon it was created, is a philosophy that is confounded by the proven truths of geology, genetics, meterology, dendochronology, biology, archaelogy, and a couple of dozen more 'ologies'. Of course the full picture in detail is not yet available and may not be for a long time to come, nor need it be to decide what is false and what is not. The building process of science in establishing theory is no secret, and the origins of mankind are of no exception.
It is the trick of Creationist's to focus on needle and ignore the haystack, but at this stage I am merely repeating previous posts and will now bow out of this one.
Best regards - HS
Science does not forbid creation, however many evolutionists subscrible to philosophic naturalism, which in effect excludes creation from consideration in origns.
As far as geology, bilology, etc. these scientists were founded in the main by creationists and today creationists appeal to facts in these fields as evidence for creation and against evolution.
This may be off topic, but the last posts on this thread (I confess I have not read it entirely) remind me of one thing:
In the old Mesopotamian stories as reflected in Genesis 2--3, science (or knowledge) has to be stolen from the gods. Science is a revolt (against the sacral, ritual, or traditional order) from the very beginning. Even "scientific believers" or "believing scientists" cannot escape this.
I love Kierkegaard's word defining apologetics as "the Judas' kiss of stupidity".
hooberus:
Abaddon, if you will remember at one point in time I was preparing to give a response to dendrochronology as related to the flood. However, you took up my time and patience with your accusations.
So much for your yes meaning yes and your no meaning no.
Three strikes and you're out. Sorry hoob, I'm sick to my back teeth with your evasion and recycling of refuted material. To try and now make it sound like the only reason you've not refuted dendrochronolgy is my fault just makes the sort of person you are very clear indeed. To put it bluntly, you're a liar. Judge 'em by their fruits, isn't it?
Of course, if you can refute dendrochronology, you will be able to show you're not lying about your motives in not refuting it by doing so. When pigs fly... which, given a few hundred million years and the right selection factors, is of course, possible... but then they wouldn't be pigs any longer...
Obviously I will have to continue, as other do here, to point out the misconceptions, evasions and distortions that so often characterise Creationism and ID. You seem blind to them, and as some people here are recovering victims of decievers already, we need to keep an eye out for them lest unsavoury characters who lie get them when they are vulnerable.
Oh, and don't bother coming back saying there are no misconceptions, evasions and distotions on creationist/ID sites. Gerry Bergman tried to argue the reputation (if you can call it that) of Creationist sites et.al. was unfair, and had his argument so thoroughly rubbished he's yet to refute or rebutt any portion of it...
I ust wanted to add a piece that I found while in a waiting room. The Finke River in Australia has been called the oldest or at least among the oldest rivers on earth. The river channel runs perpendicular to a couple mountain ranges actually passing thru higher elevations. It does this because the river was there before the rise of the mountain ranges. The river has cut a canyon that is about 400 million years old that has enabled it to retain it original course. This would only have been posssible if the rising of the ranges happened very gradually over milions of years, never rising faster that the rivers ability to erode the rockbed. This of course agrees with everything geology of the past 150 years tells us. But it would be quite impossible in the Young Earth Creationist Flood model.
