Question:
Is this the main difference between Creationists and Scientists when considering evolution?
2010-04-13 06:10:13 UTC
Scientist. "Here are the facts. What conclusion can we draw from them?
Creationist: Here is the conclusion. Which facts or lies shall we use to support it?
24 answers:
Lighting the Way to Reality
2010-04-13 06:18:23 UTC
That's it in a nutshell.



Added:



And, as we could have expected, we have creationists spewing typical lying creationist nonsense.



@Privratnik: "Remember that it was scientists, not the church, that first believed the world was flat. The church may have feared the unknown and made bad decisions, but it didn't invent flat earth theory."



The church didn't need to invent the flat earth theory. It is found in the Bible. And several early Christian writers believed the earth to be flat, including Eusebius, John Chrysostom, Lactantius, Tertullian, Theophilus, and Clement. In the sixth century, Cosmas Indicopleustes wrote a book called Christian Topology in which he used the Bible to prove that the earth is flat. This was at a time when most educated people believed the earth to be spherical.



And I challenge @Privratnik to show when *scientists* believed the earth to be flat. If he cannot do that, then he is a bald-faced liar.



The fact is that the ancient Greek scientists knew that the earth is a sphere at the same time the writers of the Bible believed it to be a flat, immovable disk, supported by pillars, and covered by the solid firmament of heaven.



In the fourth century B.C. Aristotle presented several scientific arguments for a spherical earth. Heraclides provided rational arguments to show that the earth is spinning on its axis. And in the third century B.C. Aristarchus even proposed a view of the solar system essentially the same as our modern view. He also measured the distance to the moon and its size with remarkable accuracy. Also in the third century B.C. Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth with remarkable accuracy.



On the other hand, according to Ecclesiastes 1:5 the sun actually goes around the earth--as, of course, it must, since, according to Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, and 1 Chr 16:30, the earth does not move. And the earth cannot move because, according to 1 Samuel 2:8 and Ps 75:3, it is placed on pillars. And because it is placed on pillars, it has an underside and an upper side, as confirmed by Isaiah 40:22 which indicates that the earth is a flat disk.



(If earth were a sphere it would not have an under side and an upper side. The Hebrew word translated as "circle" in Isaiah 40:22 is chuwg, which means "circle" not "sphere." Strong's Concordance: "circle"..."describe a circle." Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament: "Circle...the earth conceived as a disc, Is 40:22." Hebrew-Aramaic and English Lexicon of the Old Testament: "draw round, make a circle." If a sphere were meant, the Hebrew word duwr would have been used.)



Since the biblical earth is flat, it has an underside and under the earth is the abyss, which is referred to several times in the Bible. That is also what is being referred to in Job 26:7 when it says that the earth hangs over nothing. Job 26:7 implies that the earth has an upper side and an underside, which the actual earth does not have. (The original Hebrew word translated as "upon" in that passage in the KJV also means "over.") The actual sphere of the earth in space is not "suspended' or "hanging" "over" or "upon" nothing. It is orbiting the sun at 66,700 miles per hour.



There are several other verses in the Bible indicating the earth is flat. Nebuchadnezzar's vision in Dan 4:10-11 clearly indicates the earth is flat (if it were not flat the tree could not be seen from all the earth), and Dan 2:28 states that the visions of Nebuchadnezzar are from God. If the biblical god says the biblical earth is flat, it must be flat.



The original Hebrew word translated as firmament is raqiya. That is a noun derived from the Hebrew word raqa, which is a verb meaning "to beat out." That term is used in the bible in reference to beating out metal into plates or expanses of the metal (as in Exodus 39:3). So raqiya, as a noun, would literally mean "that which is beaten out."



The idea is that the firmament, or sky, is a solid, beaten out expanse or vault set on the rim of the flat disk of the earth. The firmament holds back the waters that are above the firmament, as stated in Genesis. If the firmament were not solid, it could not hold back the waters.



This understanding is confirmed in Job 37:18, which states:



"Can you beat out the vault of the skies as he does,

hard as a mirror of cast metal?" (New English Bible. .)



There, the Hebrew word translated as "beat out" (or "spread out" in other versions) is, as noted above, raqa.



Also, the stars in the biblical cosmos are just lights set in the firmament. As mere lights in the sky, they will fall to the earth in the Last Days (Matt 24:29), something that is ridiculous considering the actual stars are other suns and many times larger than the earth.



Some might say that the language of such things is just poetic allusion. If that is so, how does one determine what is allusion and what is not? Even if it is poetry, that does not mean that it cannot reflect what the writers of the Bible actually believed. And if the Bible is the word of god and god does not lie, would he make statements that are not factual even if they are in the form of poetry? Moreover, the above descriptions provide a coherent, structurally consistent view of the biblical cosmos and that view is consistent throughout the whole Bible.





As for "bad decisions" made by the church, among those you can point to is its burning Giordano Bruno at the stake for saying, in contradiction to the Bible, that the earth moves, and its persecution of Galileo for saying the same thing.



The Bible-based belief of the church was wrong then, and the Bible-based belief of the present-day creationists is just as wrong.





Added:



@Privratnik: "Creationists are open to being disproved, but it hasn't happened yet."



They are not, and it has happened numerous times.
2010-04-13 09:44:52 UTC
Tommiecat> OK point taken and agreed that sometimes science get arrogant and that science can cost lives if they are wrong. It is a sad thing and yeah it can make you mad, but that is the cost of life. I could find a snake and die from poison bite, a toilet could fall and kill me, etc. Now should it be to stupid mistakes, No of course not...but they happen. Maybe science should have withheld antibiotics from the public so they could be super duper sure and studied them for 50 years....lots of people would have died but hey...we don't want to be arrogant here so TS for them.

It's always a judgement call and sometimes we win, sometimes we lose....we could seal everyone up in super safe bubbles but that isn't living. Danger, injury and death are the price we pay for exploration and pushing the boundries.



Besides at least the scientists THOUGHT it was safe instead of some dip in a stupid hat who says we need to drown a bunch of hot chicks because he feels funny in the pants so they MUST be in league with the devil right? Oh and the "You a different religion so I am cutting off your hands and making you sit on a red hot poker because my religion is all about love"
DFRA
2010-04-13 06:14:56 UTC
Creationists are more along the lines of: "Here is the conclusion. Which lies and half-truths shall we use to support it? Also, which facts should we ignore and which parts of science and biology are convenient for us, so we can use them while simultaneously pretending that it doesn't exist?"
2010-04-13 06:33:28 UTC
The christian churches agree with that!!



The Pope, Catholic Church, Church of England and mainstream churches all accept the big bang and evolution!!



Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury put it rather well – “Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth”!!
Philosoraptor
2010-04-13 07:23:28 UTC
That's essentially it. But remove facts from creationist line, since there are no facts in creationism.
D700 Doug
2010-04-13 06:13:25 UTC
May I edit your statement to :



Scientist. "Here is the evidence we have collected so far. What conclusion can we draw from it?





Creationist: Here is our conclusion. Which lies shall we use to support it?
2010-04-13 12:53:43 UTC
I read that cartoon as well...





"...Scientists get it wrong an poof 7 people are dead..."





And one religion says "kill the infidels" and drive some planes into buildings and start crusades and inquisitions and ****...
2010-04-13 06:33:07 UTC
Science says, "This is the how...."



Creationists say, "This is the why..."



The main difference is that Science is not concerned with that which is not material while Creationists see the material in light of the spiritual. Different ways of looking at things. Both are needed to arrive at a balanced whole.
thundercatt9
2010-04-13 06:27:31 UTC
The science is the same, the difference is in the interpretation of the evidence. It is certainly possible to look at the evidence and come up with a different conclusion to the Darwin evolutionary position. Indeed, many would see that the evidence fits perfectly well with a design position. Even Richard Dawkins in his anti-creation book The Blind Watchmaker admits “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” In other words its science vs science.



What it gets down to is that the atheist desperately needs a naturalistic explanation of everything. The fact is the majority of scientists are theists!
No More Democrats or GOP, please
2010-04-13 06:12:31 UTC
You hit the nail right on the head.



Science is a self-correcting discipline. If facts don't support a theory, the theory is rejected.



With Creationism, on the other hand, the theory is sacrosanct. If facts don't support the theory, the facts are rejected.
za
2010-04-13 06:14:12 UTC
That's one way of looking at it.



Science is open-ended. Its content is determined by a process of theory and experiment/observation which constantly feed back to each other. It can never reach ultimate truth.



Creationism starts with ultimate truth, and fits everything else around it. Sometimes it pretends to be scientific, and presents scientific, or pseudo-scientific, evidence in its defence, but as you say its mind is already made up and it does not repond to new evidence.
Ad astra
2010-04-13 06:23:00 UTC
Hahahahahha.
suck my extended phenotype
2010-04-13 06:12:39 UTC
Remove the word 'facts' from the creationist one and you've nailed it.
Privratnik
2010-04-13 06:23:25 UTC
Creationists don't cease to be scientists just because you don't agree with them.



True science doesn't reject a theory without disproving it. Creationists are open to being disproved, but it hasn't happened yet.



The scientific method is SUPPOSED to be about drawing conclusions from observation. Without solid, undeniable evidence, any scientist is as free as any uneducated person to prefer one theory over another and to form an opinion. I find it sad that many atheists and evolutionists are unwilling to respect opposing opinions in the absence of undeniable proof.



Remember that it was scientists, not the church, that first believed the world was flat. The church may have feared the unknown and made bad decisions, but it didn't invent flat earth theory.



Science changed its opinion after observation and study. Modern science will never change its opinion about anything because it is not objective. Darwin, the god of evolusionism has spoken, and any opposing viewpoint is the new heresy. The church of political science will burn heretics at the stake of public opinion rather than admit that they actually DON'T know EVERYTHING.
Imma firin mah lazor!
2010-04-13 06:12:08 UTC
Bwahaha! That's what it boils down to.



Also,



Scientist IQ: Approximately 150

Creationist IQ: Approximately 15
shirleykins
2010-04-13 06:26:38 UTC
Methinks you've got your labels backwards. As Scientific discoveries continue to support the creation / flood theories, today's pop "scientists" increasingly find themselves in the awkward position of attempting to destroy or bury evidence. Quite a switch, isn't it, from the days of Galileo?



Anyway, with the explosion of knowledge in the last 150 years the "difficult" has become "impossible," apparently planting traditional Darwinian evolution squarely in the category of dated mythology and ritualized religion. Its proponents, as you see right here at R&S, now rely heavily on laughing, peer pressure and relentless evangelism (after all this time, why the need?) to hide an embarrassing lack of supporting evidence from ongoing discoveries and developing technologies. Suppression of newly uncovered information, inquisition-style treatment of researchers with creative viewpoints, and the continued citing of data long known to be bogus inform the truly scientific mind that Darwinian evolution is a theory that has been thoroughly tested and found untenable. However, naked to the benefits of grace, godless professionals relying on traditional funding stumble on, and those of us with time for only a superficial understanding echo faithfully the news that a hundred years ago was already out of date.



Today's archeological discoveries, deep-space astronomy, and growing ability to look ever deeper into every living cell and creature yield a relentless parade of evidence that not only has intelligent design left its footprint, but our planet has developed exactly the way we were told by those who believed someone very big loved them very much. The crowds who can only laugh may be hiding more than ignorance. A true, thinking scientist is confronted with the possibility of love. Will it ever be safe to admit that today's science has left yesterday's theories behind? Probably not. Will it ever be worth it? Oh yeah.
Jess H
2010-04-13 06:38:21 UTC
That's pretty much it.
Ndio
2010-04-13 06:12:38 UTC
Heh, yeah, pretty much.
Bored now
2010-04-13 06:16:13 UTC
Yes, you answered it correctly!
2010-04-13 06:13:13 UTC
Spot on!
Mr. A
2010-04-13 06:16:00 UTC
Yeah, I mean, scientists support their arguments with facts all the time.



And then a new discovery is made which completely screws the previously held belief, so then they use the new evidence to support a new belief. And then the cycle continues.



In other words, what I'm saying, is that you troll horribly.
avacadocheese
2010-04-13 06:27:07 UTC
lol
Tommiecat
2010-04-13 06:16:46 UTC
Scientist: here are the facts whoops our facts are wrong we just killed 7 people.



If science really understood their facts then the Columbia would not have burned up in the atmosphere.



I am sorry I work with science and scientist and I despise arrogant science and scientist. It cost people their lives.
Rockadayjohnny
2010-04-13 06:13:54 UTC
Nope, here's the difference:



Scientist: I don't really understand this stuff but if you're going to get anywhere in this business you have to pretend like it's the gospel truth. Hell, it changes every other day, don't worry about it.



Christian: The odds against all that happening by accident lead me to conclude that it didn't.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...