UK loses faith

Originally Posted by Pierre

It is a scientific theory which therefore makes it as clear and undeniable as 2+2=4

Not quite. A scientific theory must be falsifiable, else it is not a theory. The theory hangs on evidence whose interpretation, by consensus, strongly supports it. However any half-decent scientist is ready to modify or abandon the theory should future discoveries require it.

It is not, therefore, as clear or as undeniable as 2+2=4, which in any case is not a scientific theory based on the interpretation of evidence, but a theorem founded on mathematical proofs.

</pedant>

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

There has been suggestions that those who believe in creation (or declare belief in) have found it hard to publish even if their field is unlinked. If true this would give rise to a bias in numbers of scientist who believe (or declare belief) in creation as a science.

I do have issues with a young earth and a literal 6x24 hour creation. The Hebrew word in Genesis for day (yom) can mean an extended period but does normally mean 24 hours. It was Arch Bish Ussher who calculated creation at 4004BC but his methods were not accurate as it used genealogies to work backwards from know dates. But the wording in the genealogies, son of/father of, could be translated (and in some cases should be) descendant of/ancestor of.

There is also a distinction to be made between micro-evolution (traits in a species) that is proven and macro-evolution (changes from one species to another) which isn't.

Carbon Dating also presents a challenge .. the technique is generally accepted as reasonable accurate (in relative terms) and so when applied to prehistoric dating e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioc..._Fossil_Forest, it presents a problem in the Young Earth chronology

Originally Posted by ianch99

Carbon Dating also presents a challenge .. the technique is generally accepted as reasonable accurate (in relative terms) and so when applied to prehistoric dating e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioc..._Fossil_Forest, it presents a problem in the Young Earth chronology

Carbon-14 provides dates back to the tens of thousands BP. It's a problem for young-earthers who have shackled themselves to Bishop Usher's proposed creation date in 4004BC, but I don't think most proponents of the young Earth do stick to that any more. His methodology was was very suspect anyway, and there are gaps in the Genesis genealogy that aren't that hard to spot.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

Carbon-14 provides dates back to the tens of thousands BP. It's a problem for young-earthers who have shackled themselves to Bishop Usher's proposed creation date in 4004BC, but I don't think most proponents of the young Earth do stick to that any more. His methodology was was very suspect anyway, and there are gaps in the Genesis genealogy that aren't that hard to spot.

I wonder how many of the Creationist Scientists support the Young Earth interpretation rather than the age estimated by mainstream science?

[passingbat]

I find it interesting that some people who support Evolution are quite determined to prove people who believe Creation, wrong. They will claim Evolution as a fact, when it is actually a theory, granted, the predominant theory. Creation, from the scientific standpoint, is also a theory. For Christians, it is only by applying faith in The word of God that makes creation a 'faith-fact' i.e., not as we generally understand the word 'fact'.

I don't see that determination to disprove Evolution coming from the Creation side. Is it because they currently don't have as much scientific evidence as the Evolution people have? Maybe; I haven't totted up the evidence on either side. Is it because they are afraid of being ridiculed because they are standing against the 'world' view? Or is it more to do Bible Believing Christians having such confidence in the Word of God and a complete peace in what it teaches, that they don't need to defend it. That is certainly where I'm coming from. It's maybe a combination of all three.

Evolution is certainly a more 'convenient' stance. There is no creator God, and therefore no one to be accountable to when you die. Providing you obey the law, you can do whatever you want. On a human level, a pretty attractive proposition

If you acknowledge a Creator, and therefore creation, that whole scenario becomes a whole lot different. Decisions need to be made both for the way we live today and also with regard to eternity. Not such an attractive prospect on the human level.

It's easy to see on a non scientific level why Evolution is so attractive. And of course the devil loves Evolution; it negates the need of people to come to faith in Jesus.

As someone reportedly said, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist"

[Russ]

Originally Posted by passingbat

I find it interesting that some people who support Evolution are quite determined to prove people who believe Creation, wrong. They will claim Evolution as a fact, when it is actually a theory, granted, the predominant theory. Creation, from the scientific standpoint, is also a theory.

Intolerance is partly to blame...

Sorry but that's just wrong.

People support Evolution because there is considerable scientific evidence behind it. The theory of Evolution in a scientific sense is not equal to the biblical theory of creation, these are not comparable things. If you try and claim it is or promote creationism as an equally valid theory of life in science then you will rightly meet resistance.

Evolution is certainly a more 'convenient' stance. There is no creator God, and therefore no one to be accountable to when you die. Providing you obey the law, you can do whatever you want. On a human level, a pretty attractive proposition

Rubbish. An accurate understanding of evolution doesn't assume to know how the life got there in the first place. In other words the idea of a original creator of life is not incompatible with the theory of evolution. I am not a theologian but it seems to be it you could have these things co-existing if God created life and then evolution happened to if afterwards.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by passingbat

I find it interesting that some people who support Evolution are quite determined to prove people who believe Creation, wrong. They will claim Evolution as a fact, when it is actually a theory

"

That statement underlines that you do not understand what a scientific " theory" is. A theory in the usual use of the word and a scientific theory are poles apart.

A scientific theory means that it is "proven" there is no guess work, no hypotheses, it is proven. New information and evidence may appear which may change how we interpret the theory, but it doesn't the " fact" that the evolution is " proven".

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by passingbat

I find it interesting that some people who support Evolution are quite determined to prove people who believe Creation, wrong. They will claim Evolution as a fact, when it is actually a theory, granted, the predominant theory. Creation, from the scientific standpoint, is also a theory. For Christians, it is only by applying faith in The word of God that makes creation a 'faith-fact' i.e., not as we generally understand the word 'fact'.

I don't see that determination to disprove Evolution coming from the Creation side. Is it because they currently don't have as much scientific evidence as the Evolution people have? Maybe; I haven't totted up the evidence on either side. Is it because they are afraid of being ridiculed because they are standing against the 'world' view? Or is it more to do Bible Believing Christians having such confidence in the Word of God and a complete peace in what it teaches, that they don't need to defend it. That is certainly where I'm coming from. It's maybe a combination of all three.

Evolution is certainly a more 'convenient' stance. There is no creator God, and therefore no one to be accountable to when you die. Providing you obey the law, you can do whatever you want. On a human level, a pretty attractive proposition

If you acknowledge a Creator, and therefore creation, that whole scenario becomes a whole lot different. Decisions need to be made both for the way we live today and also with regard to eternity. Not such an attractive prospect on the human level.

It's easy to see on a non scientific level why Evolution is so attractive. And of course the devil loves Evolution; it negates the need of people to come to faith in Jesus.

As someone reportedly said, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist"

I think that the primary issue is when someone presents opinion as scientific fact. I personally can't see anyone objecting to people having whatever opinions as they like.

The problem lies when they take this opinion and try, using the credibility of science, and change processes & practices that affect others.

An example being the teaching of Creationism in public school in (some) US States:

Intelligent Design and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

The ruling was one in a series of developments addressing issues related to the American creationist movement and the separation of church and state. The scope of the ruling affected state schools and did not include independent schools, home schools, Sunday schools and Christian schools, all of whom remained free to teach creationism.

Within two years of the Edwards ruling a creationist textbook was produced: Of Pandas and People (1989), which attacked evolutionary biology without mentioning the identity of the supposed "intelligent designer." Drafts of the text used "creation" or "creator" before being changed to "intelligent design" or "designer" after the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling.[9] This form of creationism, known as intelligent design creationism, was developed in the early 1990s.

This would eventually lead to another court case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which went to trial on September 26, 2005, and was decided in U.S. District Court on December 20, 2005, in favor of the plaintiffs, who charged that a mandate that intelligent design (ID) be taught was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The opinion of Kitzmiller v. Dover was hailed as a landmark decision, firmly establishing that creationism and intelligent design were religious teachings and not areas of legitimate scientific research. Because the Dover Area School Board chose not to appeal, the case never reached a circuit court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

Just as it is permissible to discuss the crucial role of religion in medieval European history, creationism may be discussed in a civics, current affairs, philosophy, or comparative religions class where the intent is to factually educate students about the diverse range of human political and religious beliefs. The line is crossed only when creationism is taught as science, just as it would be if a teacher were to proselytize a particular religious belief

I don't see this as intolerance just common sense ..

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

Not quite. A scientific theory must be falsifiable, else it is not a theory. The theory hangs on evidence whose interpretation, by consensus, strongly supports it. However any half-decent scientist is ready to modify or abandon the theory should future discoveries require it.
D

This article explains quite well when talking about gravity, and what I posted earlier about the " basket"

https://explorable.com/falsifiability

Gravity is proven scientific theory.....no question.

We lived with Newtons laws for a long while and they served us well. But Eienstein produced new evidence to change how we think about gravity.

But gravity still is.

Evolution is he same. It is proven. There is no argument. New evidence may be discovered that may change how we consider evolution, but it won't change the fact that evolution is.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by passingbat

I find it interesting that some people who support Evolution are quite determined to prove people who believe Creation, wrong. They will claim Evolution as a fact, when it is actually a theory, granted, the predominant theory. Creation, from the scientific standpoint, is also a theory. For Christians, it is only by applying faith in The word of God that makes creation a 'faith-fact' i.e., not as we generally understand the word 'fact'.

"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts.

Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."

http://www.livescience.com/21491-wha...of-theory.html

[passingbat]

You will never convince me that a theory is a fact.

And Evolution is a theory, not a fact. From a scientific perspective, Creation is a theory.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by passingbat

You will never convince me that a theory is a fact.

a closed mind is a dying mind.

Originally Posted by passingbat

You will never convince me that a theory is a fact.

And Evolution is a theory, not a fact. From a scientific perspective, Creation is a theory.

But you're actually wrong on this. Your argument is hanging on the misunderstanding of the word 'theory' in a scientific context.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by passingbat

You will never convince me that a theory is a fact.

Again that statement tells me all I need to know.

You don't understand the term scientific theory.

What you have just said is that you will never be convinced about plate techtonics, general relativity or special relativity.

Hmmmmmm...........