Christians and Atheists - I double dog dare you to read the article.?

Question

and then make intelligent responses. Oh and just so everybody knows, I did not dig up something to verify my personal belief in God. This article does not seem to do that really but it gives a more rational explanation of the problem between "us and them" - okay?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/science-or-the-bible

I should have known that I would not get intelligent responses from the majority. Thanks anyway. It seems to me to have said that each side is kind of right in its own way but hey, never mind.

Okay, I'm leaving. No that's okay, don't try to persuade me to stay. I think I'll find nicer people in some other section. I find that there is total rudeness on both the Christian side and the Atheist side. Bye.

Answer 1

Well,seeing as you double dog dared! Great site by the way.
Don't worry about the "open minded free thinkers"(theres a good one)they're too entrenched in their own religious beliefs to offer anything constructive to your post.

Answer 2

The problem between "us and them" is caused by the deeply religious.

Again, Ken Ham is misleading people by re-defining terms to fit his model. His definition of "operational science" is what everyone thinks of as science these days. His definition of "origin science" is simply archeology (which is a small branch of science more closely related to history) and history (which is not science).

As he clearly states, science comes from the Latin word scire, which means "to know". Now, we can all understand that science is not the only type of knowledge you can have. But it is the best, most verifiable type of knowledge you can gain. History is based on the "winners" account of things; religion on anecdotal evidence (at best) and personal experience; and all philosophy is subjective.

Edit: Thank you Ronnie Dobbs, for pointing out the true difference between science and religion.

Edit: A little sensitive, aren't you? You don't agree with the majority of the responses (that tell you the absolute fact that Ken Ham is just a propaganda generator). Big deal--don't post propaganda if you don't want it brought to your attention as such.

Answer 3

Evolutionist tend to

1. Begin with a desired presupposition that there cannot be a Creator (judge), though they cannot prove such.
2. Amass evidence which testifies to the irreducible complexity of vastly intricate and ordered universe, but refuse to consider the obvious answer, that it had/has a Designer.
3. Attribute powers of Deity to time, chance and matter, though no experiment can legitimately come close to proving it.
4. Largely dismiss the many problems with the evolutionary hypothesis, and get all political about even allowing anything other evidence that challenges it in schools, in the name of the first amendment, thereby instituting and preserving a State sanctioned belief system of atheistic secularism.
4. Besides Creationist's scientific arguments, ignore or explain away the massive and continuing empirical evidence of cause and effect, in which those who truly repent and wholeheartedly receive the Lord Jesus, as per His requirements, realize dramatic heart and life changes which uniquely correspond to the promises of the Object of their faith (JESUS) and are contingent upon them.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4136610474021109864
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3682855866783766146
http://www.truthsaves.org/testimony/
http://www.crosssearch.com/People/Personal_Christian_Homepages/Topical/Testimonies/
http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/amazing/
http://www.christian-faith.com/truestories.html
http://www.truthsaves.org/testimony/
http://www.shelovesgod.com/library/testimonies.cfm
http://breadsite.org/topics.htm

Answer 4

I agree.

There is a difference between facts and interpretation of those facts.

I'm all for facts but interpretation? It has to be more convincing than a couple of examples of micro-evolution to prove molecules-to-man theory.

It does not help the evolutionists to say if God did it why there's so much of imperfection. God created everything perfect. It's because of the sin that things became ugly. But then it's difficult to make them understand. Science does not allow understanding of religion, you see!

Answer 5

Double Dog Dare!! oh my, oh my how can I pass this dare!

what will be the prize when I win, double mint gum!

How is it possible to take your question seriously, and give you an Intelligent responses when the package comes with a dare such as Double Dog Dare. Oh honey, you are darling. Bless you, in whatever way you believe. :-)

Dear AB,
It would have been much easier and a better dare. If you have started the dare! with some of your own argument. Not just posted an article and asked others for intelligent responses. You, my dear, didn't supply anything. You just copy and paste.

Answer 6

OK, here is a bit of it:

At this point, most people realize that the debate is not about operation science, which is based in the present. The debate is about origin science and conflicting assumptions, or beliefs, about the past.

These are the ONLY people I've ever read that qualified science as "origin" and "operation". They base this on a definition of science from the dictionary. As you know, there are MANY definitions of a word, like science, in a dictionary. To chose the one that fits your purpose and run that hard in a direction with it, seems pretty flimsy.

They add:

Molecules-to-man evolution is a belief about the past. It assumes, without observing it, that natural processes and lots of time are sufficient to explain the origin and diversification of life.

Wrong again. Evolution is observable today. Do they really not understand or are they intentionally misrepresenting it again? There is a famous experiment in england that involves moths at the start of the industrial revolution. Observable. Replicatable. Ditto something as simple as: a flu vacine.

Answer 7

That article is obviously biased in favor of the Christian perspective and I think it essentially boils down to a theistic argument I've heard a million times which goes a little something like this:

"Science doesn't have ALL the answers, so that means God did it all."

Logically, that argument takes more leaps than a triple jumper. Our ignorance is not proof of God.

Answer 8

The author(s) just INVENTED the terms "operations science" and "origin science" to bolster their position. While they are free to do that if they wish, it does not change the fact that they are making "facts" up to suit themselves!

"Creation Science" seems to miss the biggest consequence that would arise if they are correct: if God is the "Intelligent Designer" they claim, then He isn't very intelligent! Nature is rife with terrible mistakes that are inevitable with a random process, but just stupid if the result of a deliberate process!

Why do men have nipples? Why do YOU have an appendix, and the remnants of a tail? What are guinea worms for? Why do babies die of cancer? By "design"? Huh?

Answer 9

I'm a Christian, but I really don't like the "Answers in Genesis" site. Personally, I don't think its right for anyone to put God in a little box, and hold God accountable for THEIR interpretation of the way of Genesis was meant to be read.

Answer 10

Biblical teachings do not even need to be addressed by science, as simple logic shows them false. The Bible itself is incoherent, often even absurd, so why look further? Operationally, the creationist is not scientific AT ALL, because they:

1) Posit a claim (a creator) that cannot be tested (he/she/it lives outside of space/time)
2) Accept circular "evidence" (God is true because this book says its true, and the book is true because it is God's word).
3) r
Refuse to see the contradictions, absurdities and blatant falsehoods in the Bible that can be addressed. (For example, if the bowl described in 1 Kings 73 is taken at face value, the value of pi would be 3.0).

etc., etc., etc. Christianity is delusion, either from conditioning or mere stupidity, nothing more.