Most people here do not think that science is the only source of truth about the world. I certainly do not. I also do not think the evidence for evolution minimizes God or the truth of the Bible. But there is lots of evidence that interpreting the Bible literally and insisting that the earth is 6,000 years old and a global flood covered the entire globe 4,000 years ago does not comport with reality.
The scientific method does not consider supernatural explanations. So, by definition a conclusion that invokes a supernatural explanation is not scientific, no matter how “viable” it is.
There is no need to rule out the existence of God to do science. You just can’t appeal to God or miracles for an explanation to count as scientific. As I said, science can’t explain everything.
What you are describing is a fundamental misconception of what science is and what kind of answers the scientific method can establish.
Creationists rely on persecution narratives to distract from their abysmally inadequate theories. In reality, Christians in science do just fine, and the vast majority of their unbelieving colleagues don’t really care one way or another what they do on Sundays or who they pray to.
I am betting you have very little experience in academia. Publishing and research funding can be political sometimes like anything else in human society, but peer review and scientific consensus are real things that have value all the same.
You are more than welcome to believe as your conscience directs you. I assume that by taking the time to engage here, you think your beliefs might be compelling to others. All I am saying is that there are some very scientifically literate people here with genuine expertise. Throwing around a bunch of YEC website propaganda and third grade science will not be compelling to anyone. You will need to up your game and become much better informed about what you are critiquing. If your goal is just to tell people what you believe in your ignorance of how major fields of science work and what is known, then fine.
Oh really. Do tell.
I see you do not understand the language evolution analogy at all. Communicating across language barriers has nothing to do with how Latin became French. There was never a language barrier in the evolving population of speakers. Every child spoke the same language as his parents.
You’re right. That’s ridiculous. It’s also not what the evolutionary model says happens. You can’t critique something you don’t understand.
Is this what you are referring to?
Here we are told that the layers are flat with no erosion or significant channels, that geologists have abandoned long ages for the canyon formation since it couldn’t be stable over millions of years, that remnants of giant lakes are found that once dammed water before failing and violently carving out the canyon, and that a massive erosional feature near the bottom of the canyon, known as the Great Unconformity, has been observed all over the world. A bit later in the film, we are informed that the layers of the canyon preserve a succession of marine ecosystems, each washed in and deposited by flood surges. Conclusion? “The only explanation that makes sense is a global flood!”
Many who watch this movie will think: “These men are Christians and scientists, so it must be true!” Yet it doesn’t take much digging to discover that evidence of erosion between layers in the Grand Canyon is abundant, including now filled-in river channels as much as 400 ft deep. The so-called “abandonment of long ages” actually means that while some geologists think the carving took over 70 million years, others think it formed over a shorter period of about 6 million years. The giant lakes turn out to be speculation, with no actual evidence of their proposed size. Attention was drawn to the widespread occurrence of the Great Unconformity, but no mention was made of the two-mile thick sequence of tilted rocks below the Great Unconformity that has remarkable similarities to the layers above – all somehow deposited before the great flood.*
This thread discusses some pictures of not perfectly flat layers from the Grand Canyon:
There are more details on how flood geology fails to explain the geology of the Grand Canyon, including a nice diagram of the (not perfectly flat) layers in this article:
Feel free to point out all the lies you feel mainstream science is telling.
I am a Christian. I belong to an Evangelical missionary organization. I work for an NGO that supports minority language Bible translation. I don’t have anything against Christians or the Bible. But, if a Christian says the scientific evidence supports an interpretation of Genesis that insists the earth is 6,000 years old and was created in 6 literal days and no death occurred until Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in the Garden, and all life on earth was destroyed in a global flood 4,000 years ago, I would say they are either very mistaken or lying. That’s not what the scientific evidence supports. Whether you are lying or mistaken depends on what you know. Now, you can say scientific evidence be danged, I believe it anyway because I believe it is what God requires of me. That’s fine. I can respect that. I totally disagree with that idea of God and Bible interpretation, but whatever. It’s the claiming evidence that doesn’t really exist and misrepresenting and trying to discredit or hide the evidence that does exist that I find beneath the Christian witness.
I don’t think any rational definition of false prophets or false Messiahs fits “scientists” because they are not claiming to speak for God or to offer salvation on behalf of God. To imply listening to scientific consensus is listening to “false prophets” is simply bad exegesis.