Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Historical Creationism: Literal Genesis, Old Earth
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="KevinT" data-source="post: 77647793" data-attributes="member: 434988"><p>Belief in special miraculous creation is not scientific because to be "scientific" means to discoverable or explorable by the scientific method of cyclic induction/deduction with testing, verifying or rejection theories along the way. </p><p></p><p>My problem is that when I start with the scientific method and see how far one can go with it, I quickly hit a wall. The idea that the complexity of the cell, which I have studied in great detail, arose from nothing is just a non-starter for me. (I would be happy to expand on this if asked). I don't feel that the scientific process can reliably tell me what happened in the past, and I feel that many use it to tell me otherwise. If I marry myself to believing only that which I can objectively measure, only what science is able to verify, I feel I would be going down a path of belief that there is no God, everything is just random chance, there is no bigger reality to our existence, and I might as well say <em>"... what advantage is there to me, if the dead rise not? “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!” </em>(1 Cor 15:32)</p><p></p><p>But then on the other side, if I take the plain reading of the creation account in the Bible, I likewise quickly hit a wall. It is clear to me that either the earth is much much older than 6,000 yrs, or someone has gone to a lot of effort to deceive us. There is much much teaching in religious circles that doesn't seem to align with what I see in the world and universe around me.</p><p></p><p>So I have two approaches which fail to give me concrete answers. And it is this difficulty that gives rise to the effort I spend here on this board proposing ideas, listening to others, and generally struggling to make sense of it all.</p><p></p><p>So I hope that no one feels that I am attacking their own theories. I am just trying to give all the ideas a good shaking and see what comes out. </p><p></p><p>Best wishes,</p><p></p><p>Kevin</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="KevinT, post: 77647793, member: 434988"] Belief in special miraculous creation is not scientific because to be "scientific" means to discoverable or explorable by the scientific method of cyclic induction/deduction with testing, verifying or rejection theories along the way. My problem is that when I start with the scientific method and see how far one can go with it, I quickly hit a wall. The idea that the complexity of the cell, which I have studied in great detail, arose from nothing is just a non-starter for me. (I would be happy to expand on this if asked). I don't feel that the scientific process can reliably tell me what happened in the past, and I feel that many use it to tell me otherwise. If I marry myself to believing only that which I can objectively measure, only what science is able to verify, I feel I would be going down a path of belief that there is no God, everything is just random chance, there is no bigger reality to our existence, and I might as well say [I]"... what advantage is there to me, if the dead rise not? “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!” [/I](1 Cor 15:32)[I][/I] But then on the other side, if I take the plain reading of the creation account in the Bible, I likewise quickly hit a wall. It is clear to me that either the earth is much much older than 6,000 yrs, or someone has gone to a lot of effort to deceive us. There is much much teaching in religious circles that doesn't seem to align with what I see in the world and universe around me. So I have two approaches which fail to give me concrete answers. And it is this difficulty that gives rise to the effort I spend here on this board proposing ideas, listening to others, and generally struggling to make sense of it all. So I hope that no one feels that I am attacking their own theories. I am just trying to give all the ideas a good shaking and see what comes out. Best wishes, Kevin [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Historical Creationism: Literal Genesis, Old Earth
Top
Bottom