Christians: What DOES Constitute Good Proof of Anything? (genesis, America, church)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No matter how it's presented, by accredited peer-review Journal article, university press release or independent study posts, it appears to many scientists that anything which is controversial as regards literal biblical interpretations is most often labeled as biased, assumptive or the result of dishonest work by scientists.
Then, on the other hand, we are periodically asked to immediately believe "research" by church groups, where a number of religious officials, nuns in attendance or someone such as the various (faker) PhDs like Kent Hovind or Carl Baugh, who received their "degrees" from PO Box Universities in outback Australia or such, claim to be credible on-site observers. We ask why they NEVER have other secular observers, with cameras, at hand. Odd, huh?
When such reports are then questioned, or new evidence such as the admission that "Grampa carved those human - dinosaur footprints many years ago, and then sold them to a cash-starved shyster", come to light, scientists who become, reasonably, a bit suspicious are again labeled as "unwilling to open their eyes to the truth".
So.. Here's your chance: what, exactly, point-form preferred, would constitute "PROOF" to you? And who, precisely, do Christians consider credible? Harvard? Yale? Oxford? Stanford? Scientific American? Do you believe they maintain honest standards or not?
Do you understand the components of The Scientific Method, and are able to find and review them within a published research study document? If so, which part do you then dismiss as biased?
Do you ever read such documents, or do you let Answers in Genesis or such websites do your reading for you?
Are you willing to replicate the experiment yourself, to your satisfaction, but if you did, and the results were confirmed, would you be able to admit the need to change your mind?
I think the demographics of this board has changed some and you have maybe not adjusted. Hectoring "Christians" in general, as the title does, when you mean some specific subset I think no longer makes much sense.
Still in theory I suppose someone could know the scientific method and reject it. I met one atheist online who didn't believe in the scientific method because they didn't believe in relationships between cause-and-effect in the normal sense. Maybe scientists get results that say dinosaurs are millions of years old because that's what they want to find. Not that they're lying, but that their minds are actually able to effect measurements or create effects from causes that don't exist. Or for the more Christian oriented the devil is tricking them in order to throw doubt. God allows this as a Job-like test. God is reality and science is simply a process, so you go with God and accept science only in so much as it doesn't contradict Biblical literalism.
Not that I really believe anything in the above paragraph, but I think the people you're directing this at are likely solid in their position and distrust the scientific community. So I'm not sure what response you desire.
No matter how it's presented, by accredited peer-review Journal article, university press release or independent study posts, it appears to many scientists that anything which is controversial as regards literal biblical interpretations is most often labeled as biased, assumptive or the result of dishonest work by scientists.
So.. Here's your chance: what, exactly, point-form preferred, would constitute "PROOF" to you? And who, precisely, do Christians consider credible? Harvard? Yale? Oxford? Stanford? Scientific American? Do you believe they maintain honest standards or not?
Do you understand the components of The Scientific Method, and are able to find and review them within a published research study document? If so, which part do you then dismiss as biased?
Do you ever read such documents, or do you let Answers in Genesis or such websites do your reading for you?
Are you willing to replicate the experiment yourself, to your satisfaction, but if you did, and the results were confirmed, would you be able to admit the need to change your mind?
Just curious.
lol i was just having a discussion in another thread and unfortunately it seems that some Christians (and people of other religions too i suppose) are unwilling to consider other options. It would be one thing to reject them but to have a good reason to do so.. i never liked the "the Bible/Koran/BOM say this so who cares what you say you're wrong and i'm right" approach.. i took a Logic course when i was like 17 and i saw the errors in their arguments.. which ultimately aren't arguments, just "im right so shut up" back n forths. i personally like to know both sides of the argument.. can't speak for everybody else.
Your question is poorly targeted, rifleman . . . because Christians are not in agreement. Your favorite foils are the fundies and the ONLY proof of anything THEY accept is the literal Word of God in the BIBLE as THEY interpret it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here today, gone today!
