If you go to the doctor and tests reveal that you have an ulcer, you take the medicine, because you trust the science.
If you get an MRI that says you have a torn ligament, you get it fixed, because you trust the science.
When you get on your computer and answer this question, you trust the science that brought computers about.
But when the very best and most modern science places the age of the earth at 4.3 billion years, you say that the science is bad, because your pastor said so!
2006-12-11 09:44:01 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Hypocritical, self-serving, filled to the brim with magical thinking, and supported by less than nothing.
2006-12-11 09:47:21 · answer #1 · answered by Scott M 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No doctors practice medicine because that science is always changing and at least the doctors know this fact. But doctors can still not heal your body, they do not even understand after all of these years of study how healing even takes place or why does a man grow old. or why does a shark not age. Sharks grow but they do not age? Yes maybe you trust your doctor but I know he is only practicing not healing. Computers are no different than a man's mind you get nothing out of it that was not put in. You are a product of your education and learning and a computer is the same thing. But some people actually connect to a higher source of learning from a spiritual world ( some Good and some BAD ) You are either part of a solution or part of the problem. Who's Bible have you been reading. Never does it say what was before Adam and Eve fell from Grace, how much time was. There was no time before the fall of mankind, they were living in a world without time. Sure it says days, but that is only relative to our thousands of years in time. Time started at the Fall of mankind, so yes the big bang is probably the true and toke billions and billions of years not 6 thousand years or 6 days, also man didn't die the day they ate of the fruit, Adam lived 930 years by the story told. So if your going to criticize a story have all your facts straight. OK granted you may have never heard time and space relating to eternity, but God lives in eternity not time and space. 2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Says as not is, there is a difference
2006-12-11 18:10:48 · answer #2 · answered by sirromo4u 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You're assuming that all science is infallible. Do you honestly believe that it is a perfected art? No! There are flaws. When I take a pill, I sure hope it'll help, I might be surprised if it doesn't, but it's not the end of my world! However, I trust God, and I trust His Word, and His Word says, "day". Six days to create, one day to rest. The Hebrew word in, for example, Genesis 1:31 is "yoÌm". The term literally means to "be hot", essentially the "warm hours", or from sunrise to sunset. It can figuratively mean a period of time, but WITH AN ASSOCIATIVE TERM that defines that time. As there is none in this particular account of Scripture, it means what it means. A day. From sunrise to sunset. And so, the earth was created in six days. Science can, in many areas, be trusted. I trust that our car will get us where we are going, that the pill will do what it's supposed to. But if the car breaks down, or the pill fails, what of it? Science is fallible, and it would be lunacy to hold fallible science over God's infallible Word. God bless!
2006-12-11 17:59:35 · answer #3 · answered by eefen 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, we should believe real science, such as the fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old (or so), but reject pseudo-science such as saying that natural selection regarding the genesis of new species is scientific fact.
If evolution occurred, we don't know the exact mechanism involved.
---
2006-12-11 17:57:33 · answer #4 · answered by Catholic Philosopher 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The medicine you took is tested and observed on many test patients before you get to take it.
Your 4.5 billion year myth can not be tested. It is speculation so far. No artifact can be dated past about 5,000 years with unquestionable results.
Its all speculation.
So-turn your question around on yourself. Answer?
2006-12-11 17:53:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
no
origin science and operational science are quite different things
operation science, which you mention, is the stuff of the scientific method (formulated by guess who... creationists) this is the stuff of medicine, agriculture and technology This is based on the observable, testable and repeatable
origin science .. is more like detective work and more akin to historical studies except with a stronger tinge of philosophy drug along as baggage... not the same. If there is an equivocation it is on the part of philosophical naturalism, adopting naturalistic assumptions ruling out God and claiming not to be a religous world view... but it is..
2006-12-11 17:48:00 · answer #6 · answered by whirlingmerc 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Because this is not science it is theory. You just don't want to accept a second opinion so you will go ahead and accept the unnecessary medication and die. Enough said. xx
2006-12-11 18:02:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think your analogy is really weak, but I can understand what you're saying. I'd say that Young Earth Creationism is factually baseless rather than hypocritical.
2006-12-11 17:51:29 · answer #8 · answered by Alucard 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, evolution, for example, is a favorite target of fundies not because that is the only theory that contradicts creation, but because that is one of few theories where that can find a few words that can understand.
"He-he-he... monkeys... he-he-he... bones...."
2006-12-11 17:49:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
the science of origins is in a whole separate category, separate from all other sciences. it is not observable in any way.
2006-12-11 17:49:47 · answer #10 · answered by Star 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋