Creationism Vs Evolutionism
#41
(07-13-2018, 05:56 AM)AnthonyB Wrote: For starters, Origins science is dominated by atheists who believe billions of years of evolution is an indisputable fact.  I suspect they then "interpret the evidence" of the earth's age to fit this belief, resulting in some very tall tales being told.  The public accepts these stories as fact because they naively think all scientists are objective and honest.

Secondly, if it is actually true that the earth is very old, I think Genesis 1 can be interpreted as the "six days" occuring at a time - perhaps a very long time - after God created the earth (ie, there may have been at least two separate stages of creation).  So the Scriptures may support an old earth, although I believe the "six days of creation" occurred 6000-10000 years ago.

But in the end, I find the whole origins thing very confusing.  I don't trust scientists and I think evolution is an atheist fairy tale.  What Genesis really means I'm not sure, so it's probably best to accept it as a divine mystery.

I'm sure some scientists probably have an atheist worldview and they are not careful to prevent their bias from influencing their research.  However, we're not talking about a handful, even a large handful, of scientists who are distorting the natural record with their views.  We're talking about the entire scientific community.  That would mean that each and every scientist in the requisite fields would have to be atheist and allow their bias to affect their explanations, or those who aren't entirely committed to this biased narrative are all remaining silent.  It is impossible to hold the view that our current scientific narrative of the history of the earth and its origins is largely untrue without subscribing to a massive conspiracy theory.
I have resigned myself to the reality that I shall have no peace or joy should I continue to exist for eternity.  The question of deism or Christianity no longer matters.  I hope that Christianity is a farce, and that when I die, my consciousness will cease to exist.  In the meantime, I ask the Theotokos to be at my side at my judgement and ask her to intercede to, as I beg, Christ to have mercy on me and to allow me to cease to exist when I die.
Reply
#42
(07-13-2018, 09:48 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-13-2018, 05:56 AM)AnthonyB Wrote: For starters, Origins science is dominated by atheists who believe billions of years of evolution is an indisputable fact.  I suspect they then "interpret the evidence" of the earth's age to fit this belief, resulting in some very tall tales being told.  The public accepts these stories as fact because they naively think all scientists are objective and honest.

Secondly, if it is actually true that the earth is very old, I think Genesis 1 can be interpreted as the "six days" occuring at a time - perhaps a very long time - after God created the earth (ie, there may have been at least two separate stages of creation).  So the Scriptures may support an old earth, although I believe the "six days of creation" occurred 6000-10000 years ago.

But in the end, I find the whole origins thing very confusing.  I don't trust scientists and I think evolution is an atheist fairy tale.  What Genesis really means I'm not sure, so it's probably best to accept it as a divine mystery.

I'm sure some scientists probably have an atheist worldview and they are not careful to prevent their bias from influencing their research.  However, we're not talking about a handful, even a large handful, of scientists who are distorting the natural record with their views.  We're talking about the entire scientific community.  That would mean that each and every scientist in the requisite fields would have to be atheist and allow their bias to affect their explanations, or those who aren't entirely committed to this biased narrative are all remaining silent.  It is impossible to hold the view that our current scientific narrative of the history of the earth and its origins is largely untrue without subscribing to a massive conspiracy theory.

That’s not true at all. Based on the field you’re in, when you’re a student you are taught what you’re expected to know to get you up to where the field is presently at. You don’t start at square one and re-test everything yourself. You build off of the frameworks that the previous generations handed over to you. So it simply requires an acceptance of the common consensus.
Reply
#43
(07-13-2018, 09:54 AM)Some Guy Wrote: That’s not true at all. Based on the field you’re in, when you’re a student you are taught what you’re expected to know to get you up to where the field is presently at. You don’t start at square one and re-test everything yourself. You build off of the frameworks that the previous generations handed over to you. So it simply requires an acceptance of the common consensus.

Then whenever that framework was created that new scientists are learning from, it would have required all scientists to be on board with the false narrative.

Besides, new scientists are questioning the science they learned ALL the time. Very, very few are questioning the entire evolution/origins paradigm. They occasionally question a particular leg of it. So even today's scientists would have to be complicit to refuse to even question the glaring truth that evangelical, armchair scientists are able to deduce on their own.
I have resigned myself to the reality that I shall have no peace or joy should I continue to exist for eternity.  The question of deism or Christianity no longer matters.  I hope that Christianity is a farce, and that when I die, my consciousness will cease to exist.  In the meantime, I ask the Theotokos to be at my side at my judgement and ask her to intercede to, as I beg, Christ to have mercy on me and to allow me to cease to exist when I die.
Reply
#44
(07-13-2018, 11:43 AM)Melkite Wrote: Then whenever that framework was created that new scientists are learning from, it would have required all scientists to be on board with the false narrative.

Besides, new scientists are questioning the science they learned ALL the time.  Very, very few are questioning the entire evolution/origins paradigm.  They occasionally question a particular leg of it.  So even today's scientists would have to be complicit to refuse to even question the glaring truth that evangelical, armchair scientists are able to deduce on their own.

There are scientists that question it, just like there are scientists who disagree with the narrative of global cooling global warming climate change. There's no shortage of books questioning evolution. But if you're a biologist and it becomes known you're a creationist, you're going to get fired if possible, or at least not going to get funding, or shunned by the community and excluded from publishing and conferences. You end up like the guy at Google who asked if perhaps there are fewer women in STEM fields because women are less interested in science and maths. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but now he's unemployed and likely unhireable in the liberal tech industry.

It's professional suicide to question evolution. But why should they, when the clergy keep telling us there's no conflict? Maybe if they just keep researching, the next discovery will be the one to answer all the questions. And just like judges do when they have to follow precedent that they disagree with, they find a way to outwardly toe the line while personally disagreeing. I suspect - and I've read some books on the topic that say this - that many evolutionists will privately admit problems with the theory, but they'll be accused of being creationists if they publicly question it. And once labelled as a creationist, even if the scientist in question says he isn't and insists he believes that life arose from non-living matter and God had nothing to do with it, he's treated as a religious nut and excluded. Questioning evolution is heresy, according to modern, secular dogma, and heretics must be destroyed. Maybe we don't literally burn them anymore, but their careers are figuratively torched.
[-] The following 2 users Like Paul's post:
  • cassini, Some Guy
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)