or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › christians-evolution
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

christians-evolution - Page 4

post #61 of 118
Quote:
If the assumptions are unjustified, then the theory is unjustified. ... It should be immediately obvious to any Christian that whatever status science has in the process of acquiring knowledge about reality must be defined by the foundation for all knowledge: Scripture.
How do you justify the assumption that scripture is the foundation for all knowledge?
post #62 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilkat View Post
How do you justify the assumption that scripture is the foundation for all knowledge?
beats me.
Although as I say I bet he bases a lot of his beliefs somewhat (if not entirely) on the ontological argument which is circular:
God is perfect. Existence is an attribute necessary to perfection. Therefore God exists.
post #63 of 118
mamajama: That series of articles is an excerpt from his book, so it's designed to be read in conjunction with the rest of his Christian apologetic, or by someone familiar with presuppositional thinking. In the above quote he's referring to (among other things) the doctrine of occasionalism, but it's rather more complex than that. Rather than derail the thread I can recommend some more complete works on the topic, if you like, or we can continue this discussion via PM. But of course, even if you don't accept Christian science as a viable alternative to secular science, the logical and epistemological problems presented by the secular scientific method, as he describes them, are still insurmountable. (ETA: Where do you get the notion that he uses the ontological argument? I can't find that in his posts anywhere, and when I asked him he said 'LOL, no'...)
Quote:
how is using empiricism as an epistemological foundation self refuting?
By definition. 'Knowledge is gained through the senses', the first principle of empiricism as an epistemological foundation, is not a statement which can be tested by the senses.

Quote:
By knowledge, I think you are referring to the definition: justified true belief. This definition, it's true, has been refuted (most famously in Gettier's paper). But then, of course, Gettier's paper has been criticised and the classical definiton of knowledge (justified true belief) amended, expounded upon, replaced...
Pretty much. I think Gettier's objection simply stems from a different view of the 'justified' part, which I wouldn't call 'justified' at all, simply 'seemingly justified'.

Quote:
basically, by disputing empiricism, it seems as if you are suggesting that the only other option is idealism. I disagree. As a number of catholics and other practicing religious people on this thread have stated: it is possible to study and embrace both creationism and evolution, science and spitrituality, etc. In fact, many posters on this thread are including as evidence the fact that many scientists and other thinkers from the past and present were and are devout christians. That can serve as evidence that the two schools are not dichotomous.
It's not about disputing empiricism; you misunderstand. Christians use empirical methods all the time. It's about philosophically justifying empiricism, which secular science is unable to do. (Not that Christians justify empiricism-as-epistemology, but they can justify it as a fairly reliable tool--part 5, I think, of my husband's blog entry deals with this). The alternative to empiricism is not idealism but occasionalism. And while I am aware that many Christians view secular science and Christianity as compatible, I disagree with them. The plain reading of Genesis 1-3 is clear, and in order to be textually honest, I think a six-days reading of Creation is necessary. (Incidentally, most of the 'Christian scientists of the past' weren't working under a secular scientific framework at all, but under a scientific framework based on Christian principles. The principle at least of occasionalism was present, whether or not it was defined--which I should look up. Certainly it was around in Calvin's day).
post #64 of 118
Gotta go for now. Thanks for clarifying though. I'd love to discuss this further. Especially fun cause I fundamentally disagree with a lot of your points. Maybe we could start a new thread in religious studies? My PMs are all screwy--- for some reason I can't delete to clear space.
post #65 of 118
http://www.discoverymagazine.com/index.html

Is this a parody? I mean, look at this:
http://www.discoverymagazine.com/act...r/sixday1.html
Holy crap. How anybody can read the articles on this site and even remotely believe that this is teaching kids science completely baffles me.

http://kids4truth.com/hometwo.asp

Boy, those are some pretty flash animations. Not teaching any science though.

Quote:
(And frankly, the kids websites are way easier to understand than the adult creation websites...I am not particularly science brained.)
You think? Maybe it's not such a good idea that you are going to be your child's science teacher, then.
post #66 of 118
Hehe. Sure, if you like. I'll be away for much of today buying things for the baby's room (yay!), but I'm happy to keep going in RS if the good mods let us.
post #67 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by transformed View Post
Hey creationists: I found this cool website http://www.discoverymagazine.com/index.html

and this: http://kids4truth.com/hometwo.asp



(And frankly, the kids websites are way easier to understand than the adult creation websites...I am not particularly science brained.)
I read "Evolution is against the law!" from the first link. It is scientifically inaccurate and perpetrates the same mistakes that other creationists make:

Quote:
Evolution is against the Law of Biogenesis! Evolutionists tell us that living things came from nonliving matter.
Uh...no they don't. Evolution does not explain how life on earth began. Abiogenesis is one of the theories given for how life began. And biogenesis is not a law, it is a theory. The author also does not understand the theory, or how it came about. The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

Quote:
They also tell us that one kind of animal gave rise to a different kind of animal.
No, evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next, which causes populations of organisms to change over time. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms. Such new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

Quote:
Further, evolutionists tell us that this happened over and over again to produce all the millions of animals which have ever existed. But that would break the law!
What law?

Quote:
The Law of Biogenesis is real, and accepted as true by all scientists.
It is? Where is the evidence? Which I must say, this article was lacking in references.

Saint Augustine said it best:
Quote:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, . . . and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. (Augustine 1982, 42-43)
post #68 of 118
Ummm, I'd like to say two things.

#1. I'll play Gods Advocate first. The Christian God did NOT write the bible, it was compiled from writings by numerous authors, so why do Christians insist on calling the text therein God's Words?

#2. Do Creationists still teach their children that girls have one more rib than boys? As a teen I met 3 little boys who insisted that I had one more rib than they, because God took a rib from Adam to create Eve.
post #69 of 118
So yeah, I looked at answersingenesis.com, and all I saw were research articles using quotes from science textbooks to try to prove their argument.

I did not see any experiments or real exercise of the scientific method going on.

ANYONE can critique past work.

ETA: Admittedly I did not look a every single page of the site, so if there were actual experiments going on that anyone wants to point out to me, that'd be great.
post #70 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevi View Post
Ummm, I'd like to say two things.

#1. I'll play Gods Advocate first. The Christian God did NOT write the bible, it was compiled from writings by numerous authors, so why do Christians insist on calling the text therein God's Words?

#2. Do Creationists still teach their children that girls have one more rib than boys? As a teen I met 3 little boys who insisted that I had one more rib than they, because God took a rib from Adam to create Eve.
I have to admit, this post make me lol.

Creationists say that they take the words in the bible literally and at face value. I ask then, do they take Matthew 5:29-30 and Matthew 18:9-10 literally?
post #71 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Equuskia View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevi View Post
Ummm, I'd like to say two things.

#1. I'll play Gods Advocate first. The Christian God did NOT write the bible, it was compiled from writings by numerous authors, so why do Christians insist on calling the text therein God's Words?

#2. Do Creationists still teach their children that girls have one more rib than boys? As a teen I met 3 little boys who insisted that I had one more rib than they, because God took a rib from Adam to create Eve.
I have to admit, this post make me lol.
Me too.
The rib thing also confuses me. Actually, the couple times I tried to read the Bible it left me with many more questions than it answered.
post #72 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevi
#1. I'll play Gods Advocate first. The Christian God did NOT write the bible, it was compiled from writings by numerous authors, so why do Christians insist on calling the text therein God's Words?
Well, He divinely inspired those authors to write those stories, and then divinely inspired the Council of Nicea as to what stories were REALLY God's work and what was just heresy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevi
#2. Do Creationists still teach their children that girls have one more rib than boys? As a teen I met 3 little boys who insisted that I had one more rib than they, because God took a rib from Adam to create Eve.
I was taught the importance of Bible stories to Christians ought not to be an illogical belief that everything it tells us happened literally, but that they each had a moral something to get out of them. Because which Bible is really the true one? The Orthodox? King James? The original Greek or Hebrew? They all tell it differently, but I think the moral stays the same. What about in Genesis, which creation story is real? The one where Adam and Even are created at the same time or the one where Eve comes later? I remember Jesus seemed to speak in parables a lot. Did those things really happen, or were they meant to be used to help people have a higher understanding? You can get caught up in being determined to believe in every sentence is fact and miss the whole point.
post #73 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sileree View Post
I was taught the importance of Bible stories to Christians ought not to be an illogical belief that everything it tells us happened literally, but that they each had a moral something to get out of them. Because which Bible is really the true one? The Orthodox? King James? The original Greek or Hebrew? They all tell it differently, but I think the moral stays the same. What about in Genesis, which creation story is real? The one where Adam and Even are created at the same time or the one where Eve comes later? I remember Jesus seemed to speak in parables a lot. Did those things really happen, or were they meant to be used to help people have a higher understanding? You can get caught up in being determined to believe in every sentence is fact and miss the whole point.
You didn't answer my 2nd question.
I was curious as to whether parents still teach their children that men & women have a different number of ribs.
I did not ask if it should be taught, that should be obvious by looking at any x-ray.
post #74 of 118
Quote:
I was curious as to whether parents still teach their children that men & women have a different number of ribs.
There may be a few crackpots who do, but AFAIK it's not generally taught. After all, it doesn't even make sense from a Biblical point of view--if Adam had had a leg amputated, it wouldn't have meant his sons were born with only one leg... Certainly none of the Christians I know teach their kids that.
post #75 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevi View Post
You didn't answer my 2nd question.
I was curious as to whether parents still teach their children that men & women have a different number of ribs.
I did not ask if it should be taught, that should be obvious by looking at any x-ray.
I wasn't really meaning to answer your question as much as start off on my own ramble. Sorry.
post #76 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainsun View Post
Well, gravity is a "theory" as well.........

The term theory used in a scientific context differs greatly from the common theory used in everyday speech.

From wiki



Bolding mine. Believe what you want, but please do not use the argument that evolution is "just a theory," to refute it.

I really cannot believe that in this day and age children are being taught that dinosaurs didn't exist, and such. Boggles the mind. What about all the fossils? All of the physical evidence?? Is all that stuff just made up?
Big bang is just a guess, no one here was around for it. I have seen gravity work.

Who said on here dinosaurs didn't exist? They are not incompatable with a young earth.
post #77 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
Hehe. Sure, if you like. I'll be away for much of today buying things for the baby's room (yay!), but I'm happy to keep going in RS if the good mods let us.
waiting for dinner to cook now. I think we can keep it civil.
post #78 of 118
If dinosaurs exist in young earth cosmology, how do Creationists explain carbon dating? Are we just never to believe science whatsoever? That it's all a trick? Methinks not.

Personally, I think taking Genesis literally (glossing over the fact that there are 2 creation stories) and not acknowledging that there are multiple traditions within Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch (Elohist, Yahwist, Priestly and Deuteronomic, written by multiple people at different times starting from the 10th century BCE), weakens what is Genesis: a mythological narrative, much in the common style of the region, meant to provide figurative/theological Truth. Yes, it is what the people of the times truly believed, but they had not the tools we have now to discover what our world is like, and how we began in the physical sense.

And yeah, translations are never as good as the original.
post #79 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by steffanie3 View Post
Big bang is just a guess, no one here was around for it. I have seen gravity work.

Who said on here dinosaurs didn't exist? They are not incompatable with a young earth.
Have you thoroughly studied the mathematical and astronomical evidence in order to say that big bang is "just a guess"?

And as a pp mentioned, dinosaurs would not be compatible with a young earth unless you completely dismiss carbon and radiometric dating, to which then you are completely dismissing all the mathematics, physics and chemistry behind these dating methods.
post #80 of 118
Touchy issue, but this is what I believe and what I have taught my kids (we are born-again Christians, btw):

The earth is millions of years old. Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Then, Genesis 1:2 says that "But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was brooding over the waters" (quoted from the Recovery Version Bible printed by Living Stream Ministries). Obviously, there is a huge gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. We believe that in between these two verses is when Satan's fell happened, and when that happened, all of creation was somehow damaged (I think the dinosaurs existed in that time, that their demise happened in that time as well, but that's just a guess; only God knows for sure). The next group of verses after Genesis 1:2 illustrate God restoring the Earth and then creating man. Thus, it is possible for the Earth to be millions of years old, and I believe that it is. I do not believe that creation took place six thousand years ago, and I believe the Bible is very clear about this.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › christians-evolution