Originally posted by lemon limeWell I most certainly do have a problem with it. Either 'natural phenomenon' includes everything that exists, or science is not limited to natural phenomenon.
I don't have a problem with natural science limiting itself to natural phenomenon.
But I don't accept the notion that anything outside the realm of natural phenomenon either doesn't exist or cannot be observed.
Anything that can be observed, can be studied by science. So then the question is why, if it can be observed, do you not wish to call it 'natural phenomenon'?
I have no problem with the limitations of natural science, but this doesn't mean I must confine myself to those same limitations... so I won't.
How do you get past those limitations other than by declaring yourself not limited?
Originally posted by FMFYou're proving my point. Judging from what you just said it seems this is news to you. There is evidence showing there was a gigantic lake to the north of the Grand Canyon... it covered most of the state that now sits in that location. This evidence btw came from legitimate scientists who had nothing to gain one way or the other as far religious implications are concerned, because it wasn't immediately recognized how the existence of a gigantic lake could 1. lend support to the idea of a world wide flood (large scale pooling) and 2. explain the source of a volume of water large enough to cause a cavitation event.
[b]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 found in how far silt (carved from the canyon walls) traveled downstream, as well as large rocks and boulders that couldn't possib ...[text shortened]... of how it may contradict things like the belief that the earth is only a few thousand years old?
There was no apparent reason for that lake to be there, no evidence there might have been a large source (or many sources) of water for feeding into that lake. There is also evidence that one of the boundaries (on the southern end) holding the lake in gave way, so there must have been an enormous rush of water coming out of it... enough to quickly carve out an entire canyon through a process known as cavitation. It would have been able to carry rocks and small boulders with it, and this would act as a gigantic sandpaper grinder that could cut through and create something like the Grand Canyon in about a weeks time... maybe less, but definitely in less than two weeks time. And so there's yet another (#3) religious implication point... the amount of time actually needed for creation of the Grand Canyon.
All of the silt, rocks and boulders that were carried downstream are far enough away from the river running there now to make anyone wonder how all of that material might have gotten there. And the pattern it forms is consistent with a large scale dumping of material rather than the river simply changing course, so that objection was quickly shot down.
Actually, now that I think about it, this really isn't enough to make anyone wonder about this... because many scientists are content to simply go along with the slow erosion story, and find new and interesting ways to explain away evidence that is still sitting there for anyone to see... LOL
there are none so blind as those who will not see
Originally posted by lemon limeWhat really is sad though is when there is so much evidence it virtually becomes attack proof, the default recourse seems to be to attack the people who report the finds.
You're proving my point. Judging from what you just said it seems this is news to you. There is evidence showing there was a gigantic lake to the north of the Grand Canyon... it covered most of the state that now sits in that location. This evidence btw came from legitimate scientists who had nothing to gain one way or the other as far religious implicati ...[text shortened]... ing there for anyone to see... LOL
[b]there are none so blind as those who will not see[/b]
First look at the credentials, and if credentials are in order (or worse, exemplary) then see if we can learn about their religious beliefs... personal religious beliefs should be enough to cancel out any actual evidence, right?
Originally posted by lemon limeSurely our points are then more or less the same?
You're proving my point. Judging from what you just said it seems this is news to you. ...
You skipped over the main part of my post. What's wrong with the canyon formation thing ~ if it is scientifically proven ~ becoming part of what Christians believe to be the reality of "God's creation" regardless of the religious beliefs of the scientists who discover such things and regardless of how it may contradict things like the belief that the earth is only a few thousand years old?
Originally posted by lemon limeOnce again, what are your thoughts about notions like the '6,000 year old earth' and 'six day creation' that are held by many Christians ~ and, indeed, are seen as being both literally true and axiomatic? Do you think the anti-science/unscientific stance and ideas that underpin these notions are necessary or justified?
there are none so blind as those who will not see
Originally posted by FMFpffft...
Once again, what are your thoughts about notions like the '6,000 year old earth' and 'six day creation' that are held by many Christians ~ and, indeed, are seen as being both literally true and axiomatic? Do you think the anti-science/unscientific stance and ideas that underpin these notions are necessary or justified?
go stuff yourself
No, wait, I'll tell you what... I'll just do what you do and completely ignore anything you say, and pester you with the same questions over and over and over and...
Originally posted by lemon limeIt's not clear why you are ignoring the on-topic questions in my replies to your posts. If science can establish as fact what you believe about the Grand Canyon, then should Christians add it to their perception of "creation" even if it might go against certain things they had previously believed for their own religious reasons? And if they should, in your view, what about young earth beliefs and the six day beliefs?
pffft...
go stuff yourself
No, wait, I'll tell you what... I'll just do what you do and completely ignore anything you say, and pester you with the same questions over and over and over and...
Originally posted by FMFIt will all become clear to you someday... but not today.
It's not clear why you are ignoring the on-topic questions in my replies to your posts. If science can establish as fact what you believe about the Grand Canyon, then should Christians add it to their perception of "creation" even if it might go against certain things they had previously believed for their own religious reasons? And if they should, in your view, what about young earth beliefs and the six day beliefs?
Hi all,
I don't post in the SF much anymore for the obvious readons of futility and frustration, but this seemed like an interesting topic. Thanks FMF.
Having waded through all 8 pages, I found some important points that were lost and buried in the succeeding debri. Here are some comments:
Firstly, my answer to the OP is a definite NO. There certainly should not be a conflict between what the current state of human knowledge is and what the underlying world views, explanations, philosophies or beliefs are. In fact, our World Views should be adapted by our ever increasing and evolving understanding of the physical world. QM and neuroscience are two rapidly evolvin sciences, for example, that come to mind.
Secondly, thanks to JS for bringing up Francis Collins. I referred to him on previous occasions, but Ron and the Fundamentalist Clique responded by saying that "anybody who believes in evolution cannot be a Christiam, ergo FC is not a Christian so what he says doesn't matter!" 😕
Thirdly, and most importantly, Twhitehead's contention that he has never met a Christian who did not have (or was willing to face) the science vs faith conflict. (Or words to that effect).
My response here would be that I know many, myself included. The fact of the matter is that there are MANY uncertainties in life, nobody has all the answers. It is actually DUALISM (meaning every situation is black or white, and when I am right, you are wrong, or vice versa) which is a major problem in our thinking.
Clearly, if there is anything that the latest advances in science have taught us, it is that nature does not work that way. You know the obvious examples. More and more often we have to say NOT "either or", but " Yes, and!" (which is actually the title of a book by Richard Rohr on that subject.
So the truely enlightened person will be able to hold diametrically opposed opposites in both hands and say YES to both!
I realise that as I am writing this, it will sound ridiculous to people with, say, Level 1 understanding. How can it rain and not rain at the same time and the same place? How can YEC and science BOTH be true? Clearly, there are some absurdities which are just silly. But once one has done the rational homework (e.g. understand the principles of evolution as stated by a Christian like FC and read the scholars about when the Bible was written and by whom) there are still issues left that defy rational explanation. That is when non-dualistic thinking kicks in.
Lastly, talking about the Bible being the Word of God, I cannot recall who it was in this thread that, yes, the Bible is open to conflicting interpretations, and "I have experienced that myself, but it is still the WoG". This statement nicely encapsulates the very common fallacy held by the Fundamentalists that MY CURRENT interpretation of the Bible (i.e. literal or whatever) is the only true and acceptable one. Dualistic thinking at its finest. They fail to see the irony that if the Bible were actually the verbally inspired WoG, that it would be clear for all to understand and agree.
Originally posted by FMFOriginally posted by lemon lime
I've referred to your Grand Canyon belief three times. I'm not sure what more you want me to say about it. I have asked you how you think it applies to the the exhortation in the OP.
It will all become clear to you someday... but not today.
there are none so blind as those who will not see
Originally posted by FMFThe Grand Canyon & Mt. St. Helens Eruption
I've referred to your Grand Canyon belief three times. I'm not sure what more you want me to say about it. I have asked you how you think it applies to the the exhortation in the OP.
Mount St. Helens provides a rare opportunity to study transient geologic processes which produced, within a few months, changes which geologists might otherwise assume required many thousands of years. The volcano, therefore, challenges our way of thinking about how the earth works, how it changes, and the time scale we are accustomed to attaching to its formations. These processes and their effects allow Mount St. Helens to serve as a miniature laboratory for catastrophism. Mount St. Helens helps us to imagine what the Biblical Flood, of Noah's day, may have been like.
http://www.icr.org/article/mt-st-helens-catastrophism/
The events associated with the volcano’s explosion accomplished in seconds, hours, or just a few days, geologic work that normally would be interpreted as having taken hundreds or even millions of years. One particular canyon was formed, which has since been named the “Little Grand Canyon.” About 100 feet deep and somewhat wider, it is about 1/40th the scale of the mighty Grand Canyon. This canyon was formed in one day from a mudflow. A newly formed river then flowed through the Canyon formed by the mudflow.
Now I remember being taught in school that when you saw a canyon with a river running through it, you assumed that the river took a long time to erode the canyon. My teachers—not having known what happened at Mount St. Helens—would have concluded the same thing about the small river cutting through the Little Grand Canyon.
The erosion of this canyon enables scientists to see some of the layers that were laid down. What astonished them were features such as the 25-feet-thick deposit that consisted of thousands of thin layers. In school, I was taught that you assume layers like this were laid down at the rate of perhaps one or two a year. Then you could estimate how long it took for such a deposit to form, perhaps even millions of years. However, this 25-feet-thick series of layers was formed in less than one day—perhaps even just three hours.
People around the world are indoctrinated by evolutionists who believe that layers like those we see at the Grand Canyon took millions of years to be laid down. That belief of “billions of years” is foundational to evolutionary thinking. What happened at Mount St. Helens is a powerful challenge to this belief.
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/mount-st-helens/mount-st-helens-evidence-for-genesis/