Then you are engaging in misrepresentation.
Or I made an error and you corrected it.
Hi @Jonathan_Burke,
I have no more desire to engage with someone who, caught red-handed making false claims about what they said, refuses to own up to their mistakes and instead hides behind weasel words like “SOUND LIKE”.
Daniel
1 Like
That’s possible. However, an error is typically accompanied by an admission of responsibility and/or retraction. Since you have done neither, misrepresentation is the clear conclusion.
@Jonathan_Burke As both a reader and moderator, I’m surprised at the level of acrimony that seems to be implicit in your arguments. Honestly, it seems as though several people are mere degrees apart from one another in terms of their opinions and understanding, and yet this conversation seems to be running toward a binary result wherein one person is absolutely correct, and the other(s) narrative contains not a shred of truth. I honestly cannot tell what the point of this entire discussion is…
Would you like to make a position statement and then a closing remark so that I can put this painful thread to a close?
4 Likes
If you think studying doesnt tell you about God, i think you suffer from a tremendous lack of imagination.
1 Like
I thinking you are misreading the situation is my conclusion. A representative of the college is essentially the college taking a position. I tried to be gracious by agreeing with you and you turned out to be impolite. This is the last time I respond to you making mountains out of mole hills.
I have no idea what that means.
No, that is a common pseudoscientific tactic. We’ve seen it right here on PS many times.
The gracious thing would have been to simply say you were in error.
1 Like
Problem is Bill you’ve made the same sort of “error” and been corrected twice a week every week for the last three years. Still you never manage to learn a damn thing about the science you keep misrepresenting. After a while the tactic becomes pretty obvious.
Bill you deliberately quote-mined and severely misrepresented what the article said. Most people consider quote-mining to be a form of lying. You’re been caught in this sort of disingenuous quote mining enough times by now to know it’s wrong.
It’s interesting how. Everyone wants to skirt the issue.
I think it’s interesting that you can ignore centuries of the opinion, from men visionary or average, that finding out how God created his Universe is part of finding out God’s nature. It’s not the Bible tells you everything you need to know. If it was enough, there wouldn’t be so many different denominations with different schools of thought.
Again the question is simple… what is sciences contribution to the knowledge of God’s nature.
I think everyone will agree it is zero.
I don’t think everyone includes one of the debaters on this exact topic!
ADDENDUM
BOOK: Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job
“Arguably the oldest book in the Bible, the book of Job has a surprising amount to say about some of the newest scientific discoveries and controversies. Far from a book that is just about suffering, Job is filled with rich insight into both ancient and modern questions about:”
“the formation of the world”
“the difference between animals and humans”
“cosmology”
“how to care for creation and more!”
“With careful consideration and exegesis, internationally known astrophysicist and Christian apologist Hugh Ross adds yet another compelling argument to the case for the veracity of the biblical commentary on the history of the universe, Earth, life, and humanity. Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job shows that the Bible is an accurate predictor of scientific discoveries and a trustworthy source of scientific information, and that both the book of Scripture and the book of nature are consistent both internally and externally.”
Short 2 minute promotional video for book
https://vimeo.com/188050941
https://shop.reasons.org/product/273/hidden-treasures-in-the-book-of-job
You actually think Science acknowledges the existence of God and things like the Glory of God are part of the Science?
Wow! Then all the debate about ID is a waste of time.
This is just a refusal to acknowledge facts.
1 Like
Again, you forget that the original Geologists who first put us on the road to Old Earth creation were very devoted Christians.
You seem to think that Science, on its own, destroys faith. How can you be an engineer and think like this? Joshua is a scientist, and his faith is not destroyed.
You are over-simplifying… and in one stroke also ruining your credibility.
You are conflating individual scientists with Science.
I don’t think Science destroys faith. However Science as it is today does not make any claims about God. Extending Science to metaphysical questions risks extending the methodical naturalism employed in Science to philosophical naturalism.
If we are using facts of nature to do theology, there must be a clear metaphysics which acknowledges the creator/creation.
Science in itself doesn’t have it . But individual scientists do.
In the same way engineering, carpentry etc are vocation which speak nothing about metaphysics perse even though individual practitioners may subscribe to various theological viewpoints.
This is just a threat. I don’t think I am saying anything that’s not factually based or illogical.
Everyone agrees with these points…
But before an aggregation of forces started to strip God away from Science… we had
generations of scientists who happily held science and Christianity close to their hearts.
Your first sentence says it best: “I don’t think Science destroys faith.”
Good… then you know that the current state of science is not the fault of science… it may well be partly the unbending, unyielding and silly positions of American fundamentalists…
I didn’t evade it at all. I answered it directly, and corrected your repeated mistake (yet again).
These activities don’t constitute scientific observation of nature.
No. This is a complete non sequitur. This is your logic.
- Trees are part of nature.
- Science studies trees.
- Therefore science does not study nature.
You are not making any sense.
Well that’s a complete dodge. Why not just acknowledge you didn’t read me properly the first time around? I notice you made no apology for claiming I made a comment about Josh, whom I didn’t even mention.
As a reader, I am astonished at the anti-science rhetoric which fills your posts. Perceptions are funny things.
Maybe people aren’t actually separated by mere degrees. Maybe they are the best people to determine that. Maybe they don’t need you to tell them what they believe.
I don’t agree think the Peaceful Science approach to science and theology is the right way forward.
So what… they are an observation of nature… is there something special about Scientific observation that reveals God’s glory as creator better?
It seems to the contrary if anything.
Now you are just making up objections.