G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

The basis of the Flat Earth Society is that a lot of 18th century people rejected Darwin over their Religion. Older societal myths from many sources were used to justify this. Even now, Darwin's Theory is held as 'still just a theory' by those of a religious belief. Science merely adds further knowledge to explain how things work - not necessarily contradicting anyone's religion.

Religion and science can co-exist. The more science finds out, the greater the amount of 'unkowns' it produces. It is a work in progress. Equally there is a movement suggesting God is neither Male nor Female in order to encompass the feminists and the 'g****rless' within society so religion is equally a changeable belief. So if we can re-write God, as none human we are left with an entity that creates wonders that, some of which have not yet been explained. That we can explain some of 'God's actions is surely a bonus.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

ooops double post

ricardo7 Loc: Washington, DC - Santiago, Chile

Where, in all the science of evolution, does it support the creation of
Earth in 6 days or the myth of Adam and Eve?

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

I don't think so.

Have any real sources for these claims?

1.) The basis of the Flat Earth Society is that a lot of 18th century people rejected Darwin over their Religion.

Darwin in the 1700's?

Darwin's Origin of Species came out in 1859 didn't it?



Also:



Actually no...it's not a theory. A theory is supported by observational evidence; you know...experiments that yield a repeatable result.

Darwin's ideas about the past aren't testable, repeatable or observable...thus they are just an idea.


You also said:



Not only co-exist...science is only possible because God exists. The giants of science were almost all bible believers...FYI.

The process of doing science requires many assumptions; the laws of logic, induction, etc. These assumptions are justifiable in a Christian worldview but not in a non-Christian worldview.

For example; a person does an experiment. He expects that the result will be the same as it was the last time he did it the exact same way (induction)..but why?

In the Christian worldview, induction makes sense. God (who is beyond time) upholds the universe in a uniform way, and has told us that we can count on certain things in the future (Genesis 8:22). So, I’d expect to get an identical result to an identical future experiment, since God upholds the future universe in the same way He upheld the past universe.

But apart from the Bible, why should we assume that the future reflects the past?

Since we’re all made in God’s image, we instinctively rely on induction.

But how can a non-Christian assume that the future will reflect the past in his worldview?

You might say, “Well it always has,” but this doesn’t in any way mean that it likely will continue to be that way in the future unless we already knew that the future reflects the past.

In other words, when you say, “Well, in the past the future has reflected the past, so I’d expect that in the future, the future will reflect the past,” you're using a circular argument. (Think about it.) You've assumed induction to prove induction. This is “begging the question” and isn’t rational.

The Christian worldview is the only rational one to hold.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Well first...evolution isn't science...it's pseudo science but be that as it may, I'll answer.

The same evidence that we all have (pick one....any one) fossils, rocks, rock layers, stars, planets, astroids, supernovas, trees, animals, etc....all of it...supports creation as God explained it.

As I've LABORED to point out...it's not the evidence that's in question, it's the INTERPRETATION of that evidence that we disagree on.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Just to add to my earlier comments about bible believing scientists:

Francis Bacon, Lord Chancellor of England, is usually considered to be the man primarily responsible for the formulation and establishment of the so-called “scientific method” in science, stressing experimentation and induction from data rather than philosophical deduction in the tradition of Aristotle.

Bacon’s writings are also credited with leading to the founding of the Royal Society of London.

Sir Francis was a devout believer in the Bible.

He wrote: “There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power.”

Opposite the title page of Darwin’s Origin of Species appears the following quotation:

“To conclude, therefore, let no man … think or maintain that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficience in both.”

The author is Francis Bacon, and the quotation is from his 1605 book The Advancement of Learning. Here is the classical statement that there are two ways of understanding the character of God, through the Bible, and through the world he has made.

duane klipping Loc: Bristow iowa

Actually contrails aka chemtrails can't be good for the atmosphere or the planet as there are chemicals in them from the burning of jet fuel. The majority believe in c*****e c****e but themselves poo-poo things like this. When you see the sky filled with these trails how can you think there is no harm?

But then the jet-setters would rather see us earthbound people give up more so they don't have to...

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

I believe you just illustrated the point of the thread.

ricardo7 Loc: Washington, DC - Santiago, Chile

No, evolution is NOT pseudo science. Please cite one USGS publication demonstrating geologic evidence
that shows that the Earth was created in 6 days.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Lol...you haven't read a thing I've written did you?

You are illustrating (better than I could) how it works.


1.) I mention that all men have their presuppositions, their "axioms" with which they interpret any evidence.

2.) I post a quote from a high profile non-christian biologist confirming the bias.

3.) I'm challenged to "give evidence" for creation.

4.) I labor once again to explain that it's NOT the evidence that's in question, but the CONCLUSIONS drawn from the evidence that is.



And after all that...you beg me for evidence.

Do me a favor.

Go back and read what I've written on this thread...re read it if necessary.

Once you've done that...ask any clarifying questions you have if what I've written is unclear.

Other than that...you are illustrating my point beautifully.

ricardo7 Loc: Washington, DC - Santiago, Chile

TODAY, when asked, "What "facts" support a genesis creation?"
You replied "The same "facts" that support evolution". When further
asked, "Where, in all the science of evolution, does it support the creation of
Earth in 6 days or the myth of Adam and Eve? Where? What scientific paper
or conference? Asked further, to "Please cite one USGS publication demonstrating geologic evidence
that shows that the Earth was created in 6 days.", No citation. You've got nothing.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

I said (because I've said it before) we all have the same evidence. What CONCLUSIONS we come to based on that evidence is the entire POINT of all of my comments. (the one you cited INCLUDED)

Be honest. Read what I've written in this thread and don't cherry pick. You are illustrating my point about irrational bias better than anything I could say.

ricardo7 Loc: Washington, DC - Santiago, Chile

No, no, no. You're talking in circles. You started by saying the
facts that support a genesis creation are the same facts that
support evolution. But you offer no facts. Where are your
facts? You state that there are facts so you must have these facts somewhere.
Back pocket, perhaps.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Pick a fact. Any fact. You can pick any fact that you like. When you do I will point out that its MEANING or INTERPRETATION is what we disagree on.

I guess you are stuck on the word "fact". Maybe I should have used "evidence" because the word "fact" is thrown around a lot in evolutionary circles when what's mentioned isn't actually fact.

For example: It's a fact that species adapt. That's good observable science.

We'd both agree on that.

WHAT THAT IMPLIES about the origins of all life on earth is what we would DISAGREE ON.

Does that clarify it more for you? I'm not playing word games or being obtuse...I'm about as clear as I can be in what I've repeated a dozen times.

sjb3

To rpavich: I read every word of your posts on this thread; since I'm indoors I'm not wearing a hat but if I was I would take it off to salute you. You're remarkably patient, too.