Originally posted by lemon limeI don't think the OP was saying this at all. Which bit did you think was? The OP is asking: why can't the things that science has discovered simply be added to our knowledge of "creation" rather than be seen as a threat to (some) theists' beliefs and perceptions? And what does it matter if such discoveries are made by who are non-Christians or non-theists?
But I don't accept the notion that anything outside the realm of natural phenomenon either doesn't exist or cannot be observed.
Originally posted by FMFI respected your request for a response by giving you the long answer to your question:
So do you think notions like '6,000 year old earth' and '6 day creation' are nonsense if taken literally and only serve to truncate a genuine understanding of what is seen by Christians, for example, as being their God figure's creation?
"Is the science/theism dichotomy necessary?"
The short answer to your question would have been... "No."
You asked for a response to your OP, so I responded to it. If the purpose of your OP is only meant to be a starting point for you to go into your usual routine then that's fine, no problem, go ahead and knock yourself out.
I responded to your request for a response, and that's what you got...
Capisce?
Originally posted by lemon limeI think you may have misunderstood the OP because you appear to object to something that it is not saying. What do you think of notions like '6,000 year old earth' and '6 day creation' that are held by many Christians? Do you think the anti-science stance and ideas that underpin these notions are necessary or justified?
I respected your request for a response by giving you the long answer to your question:
"Is the science/theism dichotomy necessary?"
The short answer to your question would have been... "No."
You asked for a response to your OP, so I responded to it. If the purpose of your OP is only meant to be a starting point for you to go into y ...[text shortened]... ourself out.
I responded to your request for a response, and that's what you got...
Capisce?
Originally posted by FMFI took a quick look at the content of your OP and opted for simply responding to the title, because the title appears to be self explanatory.
I don't think the OP was saying this at all. Which bit did you think was? The OP is asking: why can't the things that science has discovered simply be added to our knowledge of "creation" rather than be seen as a threat to (some) theists' beliefs and perceptions? And what does it matter if such discoveries are made by who are non-Christians or non-theists?
Is the science/theism dichotomy necessary?
The answer could be yes or no depending on what you meant, your purpose in asking, etc. etc.
Originally posted by FMFWhat was it about my response that leads you to believe I did not understand your OP? What was I supposed to understand?
I think you may have misunderstood the OP because you appear to object to something that it is not saying. What do you think of notions like '6,000 year old earth' and '6 day creation' that are held by many Christians? Do you think the anti-science stance and ideas that underpin these notions are necessary or justified?
Originally posted by lemon limeWhen you said this: "But I don't accept the notion that anything outside the realm of natural phenomenon either doesn't exist or cannot be observed." This is not something that the OP was proposing. I replied at the top of this page.
What was it about my response that leads you to believe I did not understand your OP? What was I supposed to understand?
Originally posted by lemon limeIf my meaning is nearly always clear why did you suggest that it wasn't in this particular OP? The OP opinion/exhortation is pretty straightforward I think.
LOL Your meaning and purpose are transparently visible in nearly every message you post, but okay, I'll go back to give your OP a more careful read.
Originally posted by FMFI may not have understood what you wanted me to understand, but I didn't misunderstand the purpose of this thread.
If my meaning is nearly always clear why did you suggest that it wasn't in this particular OP? The OP opinion/exhortation is pretty straightforward I think.
You use terminology like "anti-science" when something like "un-scientific" would be more appropriate, so yes, you have managed to communicate your own point of view in a very straightforward manner. And in my initial response, I too communicated my point of view in a very straightforward manner.
Originally posted by FMFOriginally posted by lemon lime
I don't think the OP was saying this at all. Which bit did you think was? The OP is asking: why can't the things that science has discovered simply be added to our knowledge of "creation" rather than be seen as a threat to (some) theists' beliefs and perceptions? And what does it matter if such discoveries are made by who are non-Christians or non-theists?
But I don't accept the notion that anything outside the realm of natural phenomenon either doesn't exist or cannot be observed.
Originally posted by FMF
I don't think the OP was saying this at all.
That's correct, I was the one who said that.
Originally posted by lemon limeI think it's a bit off target if one bears in mind the specific question that the OP raises. Once again, what do you make of notions like '6,000 year old earth' and '6 day creation' that are held by many Christians to be axiomatic? Do you think the anti-science/unscientific stance and ideas that underpin these notions are necessary or justified?
Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]But I don't accept the notion that anything outside the realm of natural phenomenon either doesn't exist or cannot be observed.
Originally posted by FMF
I don't think the OP was saying this at all.
That's correct, I was the one who said that.[/b]
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFScientists have already made the mistake of ignoring best (scientific) evidence for explaining a number of (theorized) natural events, and they've been holding out on us for a very long time. But any best evidence can only be taken seriously if there are no religious implications. Why is that, what difference does it make if evidence points to or away from events recorded in the Bible? Does the Bible really have the power to influence decisions made by people (scientists?) who do not believe in God?
I don't think the OP was saying this at all. Which bit did you think was? The OP is asking: why can't the things that science has discovered simply be added to our knowledge of "creation" rather than be seen as a threat to (some) theists' beliefs and perceptions? And what does it matter if such discoveries are made by who are non-Christians or non-theists?
Formation of the Grand Canyon is a good example. We have all the evidence we need (and a viable theory) that can explain how the canyon appears to have been formed by cavitation rather than by slow erosion. Supporting evidence can be found in how far silt (carved from the canyon walls) traveled downstream, as well as large rocks and boulders that couldn't possibly have been carried as far as they were, even by the most raging river you've ever seen.
And what do you think the most likely response to what I've just written might be? Most scientists would rather pull out their own finger nails than to admit there are some things that can't be adequately explained by their pet theories. So whether you know it or not, or like it or not, your precious science is already suffering at the hands of an "anti-science" crowd...
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeBut what justifies referring to the Genesis account as being "events recorded"? It is surely allegory based on beliefs formulated and recorded billions and billions of years after whatever "events" occurred?
So why is that, what difference does it make if evidence points to or away from events recorded in the Bible?
Originally posted by lemon limeFormation of the Grand Canyon is a good example. We have all the evidence we need (and a viable theory) that can explain how the canyon appears to have been formed by cavitation rather than by slow erosion. Supporting evidence can found in how far silt (carved from the canyon walls) traveled downstream, as well as large rocks and boulders that couldn't possibly have been carried as far as they were, even by the most raging river you've ever seen.
If all this is true about the formation of the Grand Canyon and can be proved scientifically, what's wrong with it becoming part of what Christians believe to be the reality of "God's creation" regardless of the religious beliefs of the scientists who discover the truth about the canyon's formation and regardless of how it may contradict things like the belief that the earth is only a few thousand years old?