I do. If I can insert the one true god in Three Persons and replace alla-kadabra ... with "fiat lux" and stuff that is in the Bible. I definitely do.
JA: >>I definitely do.<<
Christianity does not conflict with evolution. Creationism conflicts with evolution.
me: Meaning you do not consider Creationism included in or implied by Christianity.
JA: Creationism is a philosophy. It has no scientific merit. It has no religious merit.
Creationism is not implied by Christianity.
Christians believe that God created the universe.
Christians who have an appreciation of science accept that the evidence the natural world is the evidence of Creation - and if the evidence of the natural world appears to conflict with the Creation account in the Bible then it is the interpretation of Genesis which is at fault - and needs to be reinterpreted in the light of the evidence of Creation itself (the natural world).
me: "if the evidence of the natural world appears to conflict with the Creation account in the Bible"
key word: appears
to whom and according to what hermeneutic principles?
JA: Scientific methodology has proved to be exceptionally robust - and is increasingly so.
The application of science is demonstration of the resilience of scientific research.
One cannot say that evolution is false and that other branches of science (the application of which our technology fundamentally depends on) are true because the investigative and deductive processes are essentially the same.
Creationists always ask for evidence in scripture that the Creation account in Genesis is not a scientific or literal history - they refuse to see that that is an irrelevance: the evidence of the non-scientific and non-literal nature of the Creation account in Genesis is in nature, not in scripture - and the reason is that Genesis is not a science book.
me: "Scientific methodology has proved to be exceptionally robust - and is increasingly so."
Not about evolutionism.
"The application of science is demonstration of the resilience of scientific research."
The applications that give evidence for "science" do not touch evolutionism, nor heliocentrism/geokinetism. No one has proven that geocentrics or creationists would be logically obliged to disbelieve in television, internet, bacteriology or gynaecology.
"One cannot say that evolution is false and that other branches of science (the application of which our technology fundamentally depends on) are true because the investigative and deductive processes are essentially the same."
1838 is discovered that very many stars do have a movement that circles in a year, same direction as sun, the biggest one angle being 0.76 seconds, and all others smaller, most stars still not having one recognisable angle (at least that was the case back in 1980, when the measurable angle parallaxes were for "tens of thousands of stars" among the hundreds of thousand known).
The methodology by which interpretation "stars stand still, mostly, and earth moves, and different observed movements are due to different distance" is preferred over "stars are moved by heavenly dancers" is not any technological one, except such as are applicable to dead matter alone, i e a denial of angelic hypothesis (the old scholastic one) in the principle of research rather than in application. Similarily for C14 datings exceeding Biblical chronology preference of interpretation "C14 was same proportion in athmosphere and present very much lower proportion is entirely due to old age" over interpretation "C14 was back close to creation lower proportion in atmosphere, which accounts for lower proportion now, even without exceeding Biblical chronology".
Do not tell me what creationists always do, deal with what I do - in proving, asking, explaining, challenging.
"...ask for evidence in scripture that the Creation account in Genesis is not a scientific or literal history - they refuse to see that that is an irrelevance: the evidence of the non-scientific and non-literal nature of the Creation account in Genesis is in nature, not in scripture - and the reason is that Genesis is not a science book."
Genesis neither is nor purports to be a science book, however it was for most of its existence accepted by considerable communities as literal history. Which indirectly makes it scientifically relevant.
What you are saying is that Jews from Moses to Jesus and Christians from Jesus to Darwin and Spencer got it wrong. I say that is not compatible with Christianity.
@ CD saying "Hey if you got proof that evolution is false give me some ideas.I already have some maybe we can share some ideas"
Check this out:
JA: >>Do not tell me what creationists always do, deal with what I do - in proving, asking, explaining, challenging.<<
If was you who brought up hermeneutic principals - as do many Creationists I have discussed these issues with.
I know about parallax - I have studied astronomy for over 40 years.
Carbon dating is only used for comparatively recent geology - other radiometric dating techniques are used, and used reliably, for older dating.
>>Which indirectly makes it scientifically relevant.<<
Wrong. SCripture has nothing to do with science.
Scripture is about interpersonal relationships - and the sole purpose of Genesis is to set the context for scripture.
In common with most (all?) Creationists you are clearly a "Genesis Christian" rather than a Gospel Christian.
>>What you are saying is that Jews from Moses to Jesus and Christians from Jesus to Darwin and Spencer got it wrong. I say that is not compatible with Christianity.<<
No. What I am saying is that the Bible is not about science. Genesis is not a history. Genesis sets the context for *your* personal relationship with God, and with your neighbour.
me: A Gospel Christian IS a Genesis Christian, since Gospels tell us Christ was a Genesis Hebrew.
Gospel is not limited to my personal relationship with God or man, though it includes that, it is reliable history as in Resurrection of Christ AND sayings of what He really said. And that includes historicity of Adam and Eve. He very specifically referred to Genesis History when talking about marriage.
Your Biblical hermeneutics are very clearly not those of the Catholic Church Fathers.
You avoided questions brought up about parallax (though you studied Astronomy for fourty years) and C14.
1) Can the movement currently interpreted as a parallax be interpreted as something other, like the dance of angels to honour God?
2) Are the older radiometric age datings you used to corroborate C14 as implying earth was too old for the doubt I brought up maybe subject to similar doubts as C14 itself?
I also go back to your previous answer, where you claimed there were no methodological difference between the science used in technology - as electronics, medicine - and the one used in heliocentrism and evolutionism. There is ONE clear difference:
Medicine students study bacteria that are there here before them and now while they are being studied, electricians study currents that are similarily circumscribed in time and space BUT evolution is about billions of years ago and heliocentrism is about 4 to 4 billion light years away. Except the kind of stuff that has also geocentric and creationist interpretations.
JA: Jesus's reference to the Old Testament was in respect of its teaching. Not its historicity. A teaching need not be historically accurate in order to convey the truth.
And the truth is that when Genesis talks about Adam, it is talking about you. When it talks about the serpent it is talking about sin acting on you.
The whole point of the Bible - and in particular of the Gospel, are the relationships. The whole point of the death and Resurrection of Jesus was God's desire for that relationship between God and man (specifically you, the reader) which man (specifically you, the reader) broke through his own fault be fixed. It is not Adam's sin, but yours for which Christ died. It does not matter that Adam never existed historically, but it is vitally important that you exist historically, and that Christ exists historically, to repair the relationship with God, which you broke.
me: "Jesus's reference to the Old Testament was in respect of its teaching. Not its historicity"
That is clearly NOT a limitation the Gospel brings out. Btw, I have updated the post you answered.
"The _whole_ point of the Bible - and in particular of the Gospel, are the relationships."
As excluding historicity? NO.
There are four senses*, not just one, and the fact that your favourite one is not the literal does not make your exegesis less lopsided.
prophetic as in OT pointing to Christ
moral - your fav
AND anagogic as in NT pointing to Heaven