Most unsaved people have been duped into believing false science, like evolution, is real.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
My Problem with Creation Science
- Thread starter Trump Gurl
- Start date
Creation 'science' explains the origin of the universe and life on earth as a result of God's miraculous creation. God-rejecters have no explanation for origins but they still ignorantly insist that God was not involved. That is not science, it is stubbornness.
Right Divider
Body part
Many saved people too.
Humans have weaknesses that cause them to often misunderstand and misinterpret the Bible and even more often to misunderstand and misinterpret scientific data. When humans arrive at conclusions that lead them to think facts disprove God's Word then they are wrong.
Right Divider
Body part
Trump Gurl is very confused about the Bible because she is an RC.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Did she get permabanned?
Right Divider
Body part
I don't think so.
Nobody, whether saved or lost, can deny that God created the universe and life on earth. There are no other valid possibilities.
That's a very philosophical statement you just made!
I'm not sure what you mean. I understand that any use of sound reason tacitly concedes the existence of God but that's a far cry from "the fear of the Lord", right? There are a great many scientific advancements that have been made by people who don't even believe God exists, never mind have any fear of Him. Plato and Aristotle certainly had no understanding of the God who created them but the whole field of philosophy as we know it owes its very existence to them both.
Additionally, one cannot fear a thing without a knowledge of that thing and the threat it represents to one's safety. In other words, the fear (i.e. respect) of God is a rational reaction to the truth concerning Him and your position under the influence of His authority and power. Or put in fewer words, the fear of God is philosophy.
People deny it all day every day.
You are right. Fools deny God created heaven and earth and everything in them. But they don't know what to believe and are not right to deny God just because they are fools.
Paul put it best when he stated the following...
Roman 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Who cares what you believe?
Why would I ever suggest otherwise?
That's not entirely sound logic but, okay...
If all you were doing was wildly guessing with no thought at all to the evidence, then yeah, you'd have a 50-50 chance of guessing correctly.
So what?
True. A claim is either true or it is false. Thus, the claim that God exists either either true or it is false. This is called the law of excluded middle. It is one of the fundamental building blocks of all knowledge.
You cannot prove that which is false to be true so, agreed, it can't be done.
So what?
No, it is not!
Look, I don't know who told you that but they are flatly wrong. A proper appeal to authority would be one where the expertise itself was in question, not the conclusions of his science.
So, lets say that you offered some scientific evidence of XYZ theory is true and then someone challenged your argument on the basis of the validity of the scientific evidence. THEN you could cite your source as Mr. Suchnsuch PhD and THAT would be a proper appeal to authority.
If, on the other hand, you simply claim that XYZ theory is correct because Mr. Suchnsuch PhD says it is, then that is absolutely a classic textbook example of an appeal to authority fallacy because the opinions of a PhD aren't any more true than yours or mine, in and of themselves. Simply pulling a PhD out of your back pocket is not a rational alternative to making an actual argument. Presenting the science that the PhD has performed, citing his published scientific papers, and the like would be perfectly valid but simply stating there there are PhD's that exist who agree with your side of the debate is definitely fallacious.
NO! All the cosmologists can be wrong.
You can debunk this nonsense by asking one question...
Who gets to decide what is and what is not "controversial".
Logical validity is not subject to anyone's personal opinion, no matter the size of the group that agrees with that opinion.
And so, in the end, you prove every word you've said up to this point in the post to be wrong and explain why its wrong!
I really really cannot understand what it is that makes people unable to see it when they do this to themselves.
I'm not sure I would say that they were all "lying" in the sense that they are intentionally trying to deceive people or that they do not believe what they say. There are clearly exceptions but generally, its quite the contrary, most professional scientists absolutely do believe what they say and also believe that they're being objective and so "lying" isn't really the issue.
It isn't about their honesty, it's about their premises and the cognitive dissension and paradigm blindness those premises create.
If you start with the premise that there is no God then that is going to have consequences that are unavoidable. And no matter how hard they pound on the table demanding that they are proceeding from a theologically neutral (agnostic) position, the fact is that there actually isn't any way to do that. Logic itself won't let you. The very use of logic itself presupposes the existence of God and so even an agnostic contradicts his own worldview, the moment he opens his mouth to make any argument whatsoever.
And whether God exists or not is way down the list, down close to where you're talking about more or less philosophical issues rather than strictly scientific issues. So you could set their atheism aside if you wanted and they'd still be up to their necks in presuppositions that predetermine the direction of their science. There are lots of atheistic scientists who reject Big Bang Cosmology, for example, and because they are not proceeding from the same premises that exist within the Big Bang paradigm, they see entirely different processes accounting for everything from how a star works to how galaxies form and everything in between and find no need whatsoever for ad hoc rescue devices such as dark energy and dark matter.
Is their science less valid because they reject the Big Bang? Most modern scientists would say it is entirely invalid. WHY? Not because their observations are wrong, not because they don't make testable predictions and not because of any other valid scientific reason but because their giving credence to ideas that compete with the Big Bang Theory, or any other theory held by the scientific establishment, threatens exactly that, the scientific establishment. In other words, there are other motives in play rather than just the quest for truth, chief among them being loads of free government money.
Humans come up with all kinds of theories about the origin of the universe that remain unprovable speculations. God told us He created the heavens and earth and there is not a shred of scientific evidence that proves God wrong.
Are you trying to persuade me of something?
No. I was simply adding my own thoughts to your comment. I meant neither to agree nor disagree with you, but just to add my thoughts along the same line.
expos4ever
Well-known member
False, of course.
There is plenty of evidence to support the prevailing scientific model for the origin of the universe.
Scientific evidence supports the fact that God created the universe from nothing. Science does not support the erroneous speculation that matter and energy created themselves from nothing.