Comments for Dave's Life

Comment on Grr. Boo. Hiss. by Tim

Tim — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:37:49 +0000

Belief has a lot to do with science, but mainly historical sciences. Things that are not observable anymore. You should know this from your forensics/criminal justice classes. Yes forensics alone can create what looks like a pretty water-tight case, until a new witness comes forward and points out a piece of information you previously missed. The new information doesn’t mean we ignore the previous interpretation, we simply adjust it in light of the additional info. That is what we’re doing. We are not suggesting anyone ignore any evidence. We are suggesting they re-evaluate in light of additional information. Perhaps science alone is only the study of the natural world, but if the world is supernatural as well – science would be blind to that. Therefore perhaps true knowledge comes from more than just science alone. People don’t always like that cause it’s not “provable”, but they’ve failed to admit that their historical science isn’t really “provable” either. It still requires faith either way.

Comment on Grr. Boo. Hiss. by Dave

Dave — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 22:52:27 +0000

I believe his need to believe in evolution isn’t as much as a scientific approach as it is educational. He’s not only a scientist, but an educator as well, and he is someone that wholly believes students need to know about evolution because he believes the future of our kids depend on them knowing the truth because in the end – they are the most impressionable.

When it comes to science alone, I’m sure belief has nothing to do with it.

Comment on Grr. Boo. Hiss. by Tim

Tim — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 22:48:08 +0000

I’m not sure you really acknowledged my point. Sounds like you changed topics a little there. Bill Nye’s main point in coming to the debate was to show that a belief in evolution was needed to do good science. That point (if nothing else) was greatly refuted in the debate. I’m not talking about the truthfullness of the creation model, but the fact that a belief in origins plays no role in new scientific discover or innovation. That was played out quite well! In fact I published an article a week before the debate about this big science awards in January where none of the scientists used their belief in evolution to accomplish what they did. BUT Bill Nye continues to talk about how we need people to believe in evolution to get better science. That point was strongly refuted with evidence, and he did not change like he said he would. He lied. Therefore your point about how evolutionists will change with evidence and creationists will not is also proved wrong.

Comment on Grr. Boo. Hiss. by Dave

Dave — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 22:24:06 +0000

I heard the arguments with creationist scientists, and I do believe I said “viable evidence” no? It’s like the creationist scientist that said there’s no new information, it was always there, it just showed up later. I can’t say it any easier than Andy with the 1′s and 0′s of a computer. How installing software changes 1′s and 0′s that were already there, but the software itself wasn’t. Their arguments weren’t sound or anywhere near viable and easily broken down into a million pieces. That would never, in a million years, sway Bill Nye. That’s because they were creationists, who think differently than normal scientists, and ignore vital proof and come up with their own explanation because they bow down to authority.

Now, have a complete and total evolutionist find evidence of creationism. If it were possible, they would, and they WOULDN’T fight it. Proof is proof, and they’re always happy to find more. That’s when Bill Nye would most likely change his mind.

Comment on Grr. Boo. Hiss. by Tim

Tim — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:02:13 +0000

One reply: Bill Nye was presented with plenty of evidence that creationists do good science every day and yet he continues to spew that a belief in evolution is required to do good science. He was presented with evidence, and did not change his position like he says he will. He lied. His answer sounded good, sounded more respectable than Ham’s, BUT he did not live up to it. It was a great soundbyte for him, but not true. He has a worldview, a set of presuppositions that will not sway – even with evidence. Because you are missing the key – evidence can always be interpreted according to our worldview. Therefore we can make evidence fit our worldview. You can, I can. That’s not how we settle this debate. We question our presuppositions, not the evidence.

Another point: before the debate Bill told Ken that even if he became a Christian he would NEVER embrace a young-earth. How does that statement align with his “evidence would change my mind” statement? It’s an inconsistency. He answered with a nifty soundbyte, but it wasn’t true.

Comment on What does it mean to be Christian? by Grr. Boo. Hiss. | Dave's Life

Grr. Boo. Hiss. | Dave's Life — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 04:02:29 +0000

[…] had to wait until the comments stopped…or died down really, on one of my previous posts (What does it mean to be Christian?) in order to write this one. Seriously, that post was my most commented on post, I think, ever […]

Comment on What does it mean to be Christian? by Dave

Dave — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 22:52:14 +0000

“I am not to question them”

Okay, so, why did God even give you a brain if you aren’t going to use it? when there are conflicting interpretations between huge things like this, you’re allowed to be objective and question them. God gave you a brain, after all. It’s natural TO question it, yet you shut your brain off and thus: blindly accept what you read as a fact sheet. There’s nothing wrong with questioning anything, unless you think God gave us a brain for a different reason than what we naturally use it for.

Comment on What does it mean to be Christian? by Tim

Tim — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:39:14 +0000

The point is: God said thorns are one of the effects of the curse following man’s sin. He has his reasons. I am not to question them. What I can learn from it is that things must have changed pre-curse to post-curse. The world now works differently. That may have been the whole point. God said pain would now increase in childbirth. So does that mean there was no pain or little pain before?? How would that work? We don’t know. What we do know is that the world changed. If it changed like that, perhaps it also changed in who knows how many other ways. Therefore it would be incorrect to make conclusions about the time before the curse based on what we see in the world we live in today. Unless you are willing to just say the curse is a metaphor – well then you can say that about anything I guess and justify whatever belief you want to. But just don’t fit the Bible to your belief that’s all. The Bible says thorns came after man’s sin – period. That’s it. I believe thorns came after man sinned – period. That’s it. It’s that simple. I am adding no interpretation to that.

Comment on What does it mean to be Christian? by Dave

Dave — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:34:40 +0000

You can pick plenty of food without getting pricked. Not everything has thorns. Also. Hello, work gloves? No one gets pricked by those things unless they’re, ya know….slow. Also, if I want to provide for myself I get a job and go to kroger. Oh and one more thing, even if I am pricked, it’s exactly that – a prick. I rub my fingers for maybe a full two seconds and I don’t care anymore.

Comment on What does it mean to be Christian? by Tim

Tim — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:29:17 +0000

It was a punishment. You will now have to work the ground to provide for youself, but the ground will fight you back as well. Their is no contextual corroboration for your metaphoric interpretation.