90% of his sentence was spite and nastiness
-
jmarkoff2 — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 02:38 AM)
Some groups even forcibly reject evidence that conflicts with their doctrine. Quotes from varying sources:
The Bible is preserved, reliable, and true because of the nature of its Author. It should be believed over observation and evidence. Kurt Wise, Faith, Form, and Time, p.26. Broadman & Holman Publishers, Nashville, TN, 2002.
Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa. William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, p. 36. Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL, 1994 (revised edition).
If the conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them. Tom Porch and Brad Batdorf, Biology for Christian Schools (3rd edition). BJU Press, 2004.
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. From Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith (
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
)
The irony is that some of these, at least the Answers group, call their doctrine "science," but this doctrinal element itself is by definition unscientific. They say that any evidence that conflicts with the preconceived notion must be deliberately ignored. -
RedBaroness1966 — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 03:20 AM)
I think it says alot about the state of their faith if they have to think like that, creationism is a spiritual truth (to them) not a literal truth. I think people like Tas would be surprised at how little conflict religious faith causes amongst scientists.
Since I started working in clinical sciences I've met alot of religious medics (mostly) and scientists, some of them are very devout, one of my bosses did his Haj last year and another colleague is a lay preacher. They all believe in God and their particular religious text but see no conflict with the scientific facts of evolution, common descent and the age of the Earth.
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England. -
senseibushido — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 02:54 AM)
Do you think it would destroy your faith?
I've heard the likes of Ken Ham and Kent Hovind say something to the effect of "if this part of the bible is nothing more than a fantastical story, why should we believe the rest of it is true?" They
do
think that not accepting a literal reading of the creation account means that their belief in Jesus and salvation is in jeopardy. -
jmarkoff2 — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 03:33 AM)
The Hovind ilk also spent a lot of resources in West Congo looking for Mokele Mbembe, the so called last brontosaur, saying that its existence would prove one point of the Bible, which would then prove the Bible's other points by default.
-
Lowtax-86 — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 04:22 PM)
Creationist "scientists" aren't really scientists because creationism can't be tested, observed, experimented, etc. Creationist "studies" typically don't go beyond "life forms are complicated, therefore a Creator would have to be involved". Any alleged proof creationists present is basically just that argument reworded as a clumsy hypothesis (ie the human eye is complex, therefore a designer was involved).
You're standing on my neck -
gladoscake — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 05:13 PM)
There's a colossal difference between being open to the possibility of a deity and being a die-hard Jesus cheerleader. Surely none of the listed scientists and physicists we're anything like that. And remember, even if there is a god, it doesn't mean it's the Biblical one. For all you know, god could be something so incomprehensible and have 0 likeness to Humanity, it seeks to reason that as humans aren't the only intelligent life in the Universe and likely others outside it, the imagined 'god' entity would be an apathetic and cold, being that is superfluous to humanely-defined guidelines and perceptions, that we'd only just be one small speck in the massive collection of Life, that what we do is so small in the grander scheme of things.
Or perhaps it's less that we're 'small and inferior' and that we're simply part of an infinite scale that composes the body, system of an even bigger entity, biological life-forms, the fundamental structure of the Universe, even the central nervous systems or simplified 'nucleus' seems to have a similarity in their innate behavior of forming connections and ever growing networks, through communication, much like the neurons in our cerebral cortex, maybe the Universe,
our
Universe, is a brain, and we're the specialized cells transmitting nerve impulses; through a nerve fiber travelling across cell membranes, and in our organs and bodies, the same process is occuring but on a smaller scale, though technically everything has a purpose, no matter how small and microscopic, we influence so much and the outside of us influences us, everything has a role to play, in this endless stream of data, that forever is passed on. Our existences, lives, memories, thoughts, dreams, passions, emotions, calculations, are just an extension of galaxies, stars forming, internet networks codified, makes you wonder, eh? in a way, the Internet is almost like a digitized 'simplified' Universe or Neuron, everything in Life seems to relate with development and production, is that the purpose of it all? to simply be created 'formed' and create other things? -
aaahmemories — 9 years ago(December 31, 2016 02:30 PM)
you know their mind better than they do
If they genuinely believe they've had an NDE, they hadn't much mind to begin with. Not tough to know that better than they do.
The Dumpster gives a whole new meaning to "red" states. -
Pat_answers — 9 years ago(January 01, 2017 10:52 AM)