RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories more legit than the others around the world?
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories m... - 2/13/2010 4:05:15 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5775
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
Oh, no! You can't turn this around. Why not, you do it all the time...
quote:
I'd really like a direct answer to a direct question. So again, I ask "How is it that creationists, knowing that the supernatural cannot be proven or disproven, act as though creationism should be treated as science?" The same way that evolutionists "act as though their religion should be treated as science". It's called faith-based assumptions and a preconceived worldview in drawing conclusions from observational evidence.
As always, veritas, I admit my bias; you continue to deny you even have one!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories m... - 2/13/2010 4:15:14 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 414
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Oh, no! You can't turn this around. Why not, you do it all the time...
quote:
I'd really like a direct answer to a direct question. So again, I ask "How is it that creationists, knowing that the supernatural cannot be proven or disproven, act as though creationism should be treated as science?" The same way that evolutionists "act as though their religion should be treated as science". It's called faith-based assumptions and a preconceived worldview in drawing conclusions from observational evidence.
As always, veritas, I admit my bias; you continue to deny you even have one!
I've given you one way evolution could be falsified. You've admitted that the supernatural cannot be proven or disproven. Evolution is falsifiable; creationism is not falsifiable. It is not the same at all.
I see I'm not going to get a direct answer to a direct question from you.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories m... - 2/13/2010 4:43:32 PM
|
|
|
bolt.
Posts: 2319
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: Canada
Status: online
|
quote:
"How is it that creationists, knowing that the supernatural cannot be proven or disproven, act as though creationism should be treated as science?"
Because we trust the source of the data that has been intentionally provided for our understanding. It's not that we expect that sort of truth to be 'treated as science' -- it's that we consider that source of truth to be a vastly superior one, as compared to the scientific method.
_____________________________
Are you having trouble getting your daily dose of the life changing Word of God?
Let my friend Brian at Daily Audio Bible help you too.
>>audio link<<
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories m... - 2/13/2010 5:09:37 PM
|
|
|
shakezula
Posts: 654
Joined: 3/9/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bolt.
Because we trust the source of the data that has been intentionally provided for our understanding. It's not that we expect that sort of truth to be 'treated as science' -- it's that we consider that source of truth to be a vastly superior one, as compared to the scientific method.
so creationism is not scientific, but we should use it as a substitute for science?
_____________________________
watch out for the oo moo and the blehblehbleh
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories m... - 2/13/2010 5:18:53 PM
|
|
|
StephenJ
Posts: 469
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: shakezula
quote:
ORIGINAL: bolt.
Because we trust the source of the data that has been intentionally provided for our understanding. It's not that we expect that sort of truth to be 'treated as science' -- it's that we consider that source of truth to be a vastly superior one, as compared to the scientific method.
so creationism is not scientific, but we should use it as a substitute for science?
Interesting way of seeing it.
_____________________________
Rock on!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories m... - 2/13/2010 5:24:26 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5775
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
so creationism is not scientific, but we should use it as a substitute for science? Evolutionism is also not "scientific", but it's used as a substitute for science throughout the world's public educational system!
Interesting way of seeing it... 
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories m... - 2/13/2010 6:01:50 PM
|
|
|
bolt.
Posts: 2319
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: Canada
Status: online
|
quote:
so creationism is not scientific, but we should use it as a substitute for science?
Revelation is not a 'substitute' for science... it is vastly superior to science.
The scientific method is a method by which we, in a fairly reliable manner, investigate and explore all the wonderful ways in which creation works and has worked. That's fun stuff, and fascinating, and it often comes up with good plausibilities... and those plausibilities are rarely static, but often are further developed into even more complex and closer-to-accurate possibilities of understanding. Science is a blast!
But what is revealed has no need of confirmation, except so-as to further glorify the One who did both the creating and the revealing. In which case, science is a blast, too. Revelation is just drastically more accurate and reliable than the glorified guess-and-check that we all enjoy so much as far as science goes.
_____________________________
Are you having trouble getting your daily dose of the life changing Word of God?
Let my friend Brian at Daily Audio Bible help you too.
>>audio link<<
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories m... - 2/13/2010 6:18:23 PM
|
|
|
shakezula
Posts: 654
Joined: 3/9/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bolt.
quote:
so creationism is not scientific, but we should use it as a substitute for science?
Revelation is not a 'substitute' for science..
But what is revealed has no need of confirmation, except so-as to further glorify the One who did both the creating and the revealing. In which case, science is a blast, too. Revelation is just drastically more accurate and reliable than the glorified guess-and-check that we all enjoy so much as far as science goes.
but the q is why creationists act as if creationism should be treated as science. it seems like you're venturing into uncharted waters by saying that creationism is true but it's not science. that's an interesting position, but i'm not sure how it looks in practice, since we still have to deal with science and scientific research every day.
_____________________________
watch out for the oo moo and the blehblehbleh
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories m... - 2/13/2010 6:46:14 PM
|
|
|
bolt.
Posts: 2319
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: Canada
Status: online
|
Science is a method.
It makes no grammatical sense to say that "creationism should be treated as science" since creationism is not a method of doing anything. That's why I assumed that the question had to do whether creationism should be treated in the same manner as the theories which result from the scientific method. I must have misunderstood something about the question.
There is no problem at all in dealing with both revelation and investigation as sources of understanding in daily life. I think most people do that about 100 times most days.
_____________________________
Are you having trouble getting your daily dose of the life changing Word of God?
Let my friend Brian at Daily Audio Bible help you too.
>>audio link<<
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories m... - 2/14/2010 1:59:32 AM
|
|
|
Dante_Alighieri
Posts: 304
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
Nor can the supernatural, by definition, be objectively disproven. But that doesn't seem to register with you uniformitarian naturalists one iota...
Quite presumptuous of you, to presume what it is I accept, no? I'm agnostic and I agree that the supernatural cannot be objectively disproven. I don't know what this "uniformitarian naturalism" is that you speak of.
quote:
How is it that evolutionists, knowing that the evolution cannot be proven or disproven, act as though evolutionism should be treated as science?
Well that's one way to dodge a legitimate question. Do you or do you not concede that the supernatural can or cannot be objectively proven or disproven?
quote:
Because we trust the source of the data that has been intentionally provided for our understanding. It's not that we expect that sort of truth to be 'treated as science' -- it's that we consider that source of truth to be a vastly superior one, as compared to the scientific method.
Ah the good ol' "God done it" argument. How enlightening.
quote:
Evolutionism is also not "scientific", but it's used as a substitute for science throughout the world's public educational system!
Interesting way of seeing it...
Instead of just creating turn-of-phrase arguments, can you provide any real evidence why evolution is not scientific? What tenet of science is exactly violated within the theory of evolution? Also, are you then purporting that ID should be accepted just on the presumed basis that evolution is unscientific? Because that would seem to be hypocritical of you.
quote:
Revelation is not a 'substitute' for science... it is vastly superior to science.
It's also extraordinarily subjective. What makes biblical revelation superior to any other alleged religious "revelation"?
Dante
_____________________________
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la via diritta era smarrita.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories m... - 2/14/2010 7:27:47 AM
|
|
|
Strider33
Posts: 767
Joined: 4/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dante_Alighieri
Prove your god wrote it.
Prove that He didn't.
PS: Was the original Dante an atheist?
_____________________________
Not all those who wander are lost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories m... - 2/14/2010 7:31:57 AM
|
|
|
Strider33
Posts: 767
Joined: 4/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
How is it that creationists, knowing that the supernatural cannot be proven or disproven, act as though creationism should be treated as science. How is it that evolutionists, knowing that the evolution cannot be proven or disproven, act as though evolutionism should be treated as science?
(Evolutionism???)
Oh, no! You can't turn this around. A violation of the nested hierarchy would disprove evolution.
That's not true. Right now, geneticists are playing around with the notion that a microbe's DNA can incorporate DNA from multiple ancestors of different species.
_____________________________
Not all those who wander are lost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories m... - 2/14/2010 7:39:43 AM
|
|
|
Strider33
Posts: 767
Joined: 4/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bolt.
Science is a method.
It makes no grammatical sense to say that "creationism should be treated as science" since creationism is not a method of doing anything. That's why I assumed that the question had to do whether creationism should be treated in the same manner as the theories which result from the scientific method. I must have misunderstood something about the question.
There is no problem at all in dealing with both revelation and investigation as sources of understanding in daily life. I think most people do that about 100 times most days.
I disagree.
I think that creationism is a method for inferring design and intent with regard to the facts that science currently asserts.
The method that creationism uses is at variance with the scientific method, to be sure. And I disagree with the assertion that creationism is science. But claiming that it's incorrect and claiming that it's ungrammatical are very different assertions.
Your wording is double plus ungood.
_____________________________
Not all those who wander are lost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories m... - 2/14/2010 10:00:17 AM
|
|
|
bolt.
Posts: 2319
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: Canada
Status: online
|
quote:
I think that creationism is a method for inferring design and intent with regard to the facts that science currently asserts... claiming that it's incorrect and claiming that it's ungrammatical are very different assertions.
Sorry. I knew I must be misunderstanding the terminology somewhere. I thought 'creationism' was a theory, understanding or position. If it's a method, I don't know enough about that method to speak to it... and I probably shouldn't have confused the issue by trying.
quote:
Ah the good ol' "God done it" argument. How enlightening.
You asked (more or less) why it is that 'creationists' believe that their conclusions are as legitimate as scientific ones. That's why. If you don't appreciate the actual answer to the question you asked, maybe you should try another question. It was not my intention to 'argue' anything, only to let you know the 'creationist' reasoning process that you apparently were curious about.
_____________________________
Are you having trouble getting your daily dose of the life changing Word of God?
Let my friend Brian at Daily Audio Bible help you too.
>>audio link<<
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories m... - 2/14/2010 2:20:50 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5775
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
Sorry. I knew I must be misunderstanding the terminology somewhere. I thought 'creationism' was a theory, understanding or position. If it's a method, I don't know enough about that method to speak to it... and I probably shouldn't have confused the issue by trying. Nothing to be sorry about, bolt! You are indeed correct in your original thoughts on "creationism". Creationist scientists use the very same evidence and the very same operative methodologies to explore their theoretical position. They just have entirely different faith-based assumptions than the practitioners of evolutionism.
quote:
You asked (more or less) why it is that 'creationists' believe that their conclusions are as legitimate as scientific ones. That's why. If you don't appreciate the actual answer to the question you asked, maybe you should try another question. It was not my intention to 'argue' anything, only to let you know the 'creationist' reasoning process that you apparently were curious about. Correct again, bolt! This is no different philosophically than the evolutionists who claim "uniformitarian naturalism did it". They just refuse to admit their religious biases...
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories m... - 2/14/2010 2:23:15 PM
|
|
|
Dante_Alighieri
Posts: 304
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
Prove that He didn't.
I can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you.
quote:
PS: Was the original Dante an atheist?
No.
Dante
_____________________________
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la via diritta era smarrita.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories m... - 2/14/2010 4:32:30 PM
|
|
|
Strider33
Posts: 767
Joined: 4/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dante_Alighieri
quote:
Prove that He didn't.
I can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you.
No, it isn't.
_____________________________
Not all those who wander are lost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories m... - 2/14/2010 4:35:29 PM
|
|
|
Strider33
Posts: 767
Joined: 4/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bolt.
quote:
I think that creationism is a method for inferring design and intent with regard to the facts that science currently asserts... claiming that it's incorrect and claiming that it's ungrammatical are very different assertions.
Sorry. I knew I must be misunderstanding the terminology somewhere. I thought 'creationism' was a theory, understanding or position. If it's a method, I don't know enough about that method to speak to it... and I probably shouldn't have confused the issue by trying.
The misunderstanding could equally well be on my part. Some people have characterized creationism as a theory. If I understand creationism correctly, it's not falsifiable. If it's not falsifiable, then it's not a theory in my book. But that's just my understanding of what constitutes a theory.
_____________________________
Not all those who wander are lost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories m... - 2/14/2010 5:59:50 PM
|
|
|
shakezula
Posts: 654
Joined: 3/9/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bolt.
You asked (more or less) why it is that 'creationists' believe that their conclusions are as legitimate as scientific ones. That's why.
it's not enough to say that something happened (or didn't happen). creationism should be testable for it to be useful. if evidence for creationism can be found, then there should be "atheistic creationists," or scientists who reject evolution and old earth arguments, but do not believe in the Bible.
_____________________________
watch out for the oo moo and the blehblehbleh
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories m... - 2/14/2010 6:08:18 PM
|
|
|
bolt.
Posts: 2319
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: Canada
Status: online
|
quote:
it's not enough to say that something happened (or didn't happen).
Of course it is enough, if it is the true answer to the question, "Why do creationists think..."
quote:
creationism should be testable for it to be useful.
I see no reason why it should be either testable (got a time machine?) or useful (what use are theories about ancient history?)
quote:
if evidence for creationism can be found, then there should be "atheistic creationists," or scientists who reject evolution and old earth arguments, but do not believe in the Bible.
There is a variety of evidence that suits a variety of models of understanding. Those who do not believe God exists obviously are unlikely to include Him or his actions in the model they choose to consider a best-fit for the evidence at hand.
_____________________________
Are you having trouble getting your daily dose of the life changing Word of God?
Let my friend Brian at Daily Audio Bible help you too.
>>audio link<<
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories m... - 2/14/2010 10:21:41 PM
|
|
|
Dante_Alighieri
Posts: 304
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
No, it isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
Feel free to get back to me.
Dante
_____________________________
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la via diritta era smarrita.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories m... - 2/15/2010 8:03:41 AM
|
|
|
Strider33
Posts: 767
Joined: 4/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dante_Alighieri
quote:
No, it isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
Feel free to get back to me.
Dante
Let me explain why it is not my burden. Scripture is fully capable of demonstrating its own truth.
Read Scripture. If it convinces you, I have no burden of proof. (I'm guessing you already have read the Scripture. This is for the benefit of any lurkers who have not.)
There are those who read the entire scripture and remain unconvinced. I conclude, from Scripture, that God has not called them to be believers. For me to undertake to prove Scripture to them would be a fool's errand. It's not my burden.
_____________________________
Not all those who wander are lost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories m... - 2/15/2010 11:15:04 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5775
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
If I understand creationism correctly, it's not falsifiable. Of course creationism is falsifiable. What's the big deal? All anyone needs to do is create life...
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What makes the Genesis creation and flood stories m... - 2/15/2010 11:36:28 AM
|
|
|
Ohioman1972
Posts: 416
Joined: 8/20/2009
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dante_Alighieri
quote:
Have you ever sincerely attempted to address the God of the author of Genesis on your own?
Prove your god wrote it.
Dante
Dante. Please read the quote again.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
