The issue is not "who are you to question" but rather to those who already do question, "why disagree with the consensus?"
Why Disagree with the Consensus of Experts?
Sort:
Aug 18, 2020
0
#63
I suppose the answer would be .... “Because you think the consensus is wrong”.
Aug 18, 2020
0
#64
And since that answer is so obvious, doesn’t that actually show that the question behind the question is really “Who do you think you are?”?
No, it simply begs the question on what grounds one disagrees with the consensus---a completely valid question. Are you one of the dissenters? If so, then it's completely valid to ask on what basis you reject the scientific consensus.
Aug 18, 2020
0
#66
Yes, I am a dissenter the theory of evolution (creation evolution also) and it is on the basis of Scripture.
Fair enough. Although in fairness it must also be recognized that there are many Christians who disagree with you---who accept evolution and Scripture and see no conflict between the two. But at any rate, such arguments have no bearing on the scientific consensus because they are not scientific challenges, but matters of faith.
Aug 18, 2020
0
#68
This opens another can of worms... there are many people who claim to be Christian who are not.
True, but one's position on evolution is not a matter of salvation
Aug 18, 2020
0
#70
tbwp10 wrote:
True, but ones position on evolution is not a matter of salvation.
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also he have received, and wherein he stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if you keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless he have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures ;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures :
5 and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
With a shakey faith in the Scriptures, from whence cometh this “faith in Christ”? We learn of him in the Scriptures and if we don’t take the Scriptures at face value how do we have faith in the Christ it teaches of?
Hebrews 6 says that the Word of God is the anchor of our faith. Without it I don’t see how someone can claim “faith in Christ, whom the Scriptures declare is the living Word of God.
I can easily see how you could misunderstand something in Scripture and still be a believer, I suppose we (believers) all do or have done that. But if you see something written in the Scriptures and say “I see it, I understand it, it is what the Scriptures teach, but I don’t believe it, it’s because you’re not a believer.
A firefighter fights fires, a race car driver drives race cars and a believer believes the Scriptures.
None of that has any relevance to what I said. Evolution is not a matter of salvation and there are many Christians who accept the scientific consensus of biological evolution and see no conflict with scripture.
Aug 18, 2020
0
#72
Blindness greatly limits what you “see”. And again, many are called Christian Or call themselves Christian, who are not.
The problem with pulling the "blindness" card is that one can simply turn around and say that you're the one who is blind. And round and round it goes solving nothing. If you want to convince others that the scientific consensus is wrong then you need to present scientific evidence in support
Aug 18, 2020
0
#74
At this point the conversation has somewhat turned to the idea of believers not believing, and somewhat left the “scientific consensus” theme. As far as the blindness thing goes, it is in response to your comment on people who claim to be a child of God not “seeing” a conflict between evolution and Scripture.
Yes, and that includes Christians like Old Testament scholar and Ancient Near East expert Dr. John H. Walton, who sees no conflict. That said, this post is still about the scientific consensus so that should not be abandoned but needs to be returned to. The bottom line is you're not going to convince non-Christians in this forum that scientific consensus on evolution is wrong on the basis of your Christian beliefs. You need to do so using science.
Aug 18, 2020
0
#76
As far as the man you mentioned, some of these false Christians have fancy degrees from prestigious places. It doesn’t really matter.
As to your second point, neither will you pull a true Christian away from the Scriptures with “scientific consensus”
And as to getting back to the original topic, I forgot what it was, this one’s better.
Here's another example of disagreeing with the experts. You're entitled to disagree all you want, but I will trust Walton's decades of meticulous Old Testament scholarship on the subject of Genesis over your judgmental pronouncements "based" on your self-appointed personal authority, just like I'll trust my doctor's diagnosis over yours.
Aug 18, 2020
0
#78
If you trust Walton’s criticism of the Scriptures, it will be instead of the Scriptures.
Wow! You've convinced me (not really). And you really shouldn't misrepresent Walton. Not cool. He doesn't *criticize* scripture. Apparently you don't know what exegesis is. You also continue to avoid the main issue here that again if you want to convince non-Christians in this forum that scientific consensus on evolution is wrong then you're not going to persuade on the basis of Christian belief, but need to support with science.
Oct 23, 2020
0
#80
tbwp10 wrote:
Wow! You've convinced me (not really). And you really shouldn't misrepresent Walton. Not cool. He doesn't *criticize* scripture. Apparently you don't know what exegesis is. You also continue to avoid the main issue here that again if you want to convince non-Christians in this forum that scientific consensus on evolution is wrong then you're not going to persuade on the basis of Christian belief, but need to support with science.
To the point of the original post(and I’m paraphrasing), “Why would someone think they can disagree with the experts”, picture this....
What if their graves were opened up and Steven Hawkins and Albert Einstein were having a discussion (argument, really) about something completely over your head. As they went back and forth and you observed the proceedings they suddenly noticed you and turned to you and asked your opinion of the matter. After you explained that you were a lowly window licker and pointed out the Velcro straps on your shoes they each did their best to explain their side of the argument to you.
Let’s pretend for a moment that they each did such a fantastic job in reducing their beliefs to an understandable level while still maintaining the heart of the matter that you actually were able to understand both sides of the argument.
And in answer to their question you said you believed Einstein was correct.
And then it turned out that Einstein actually was correct.
Does this now mean that you are smarter than Steven Hawkins? Can you now strut around and claim yourself to be among history’s mental elite? Should you now feel that people should line up outside your door with slips of paper in hand upon which are written all the universe’s difficult questions.
No, but it does mean that great men can be wrong, and you can disagree with someone smarter than you, more informed than you and more prestigious than you and not necessarily be wrong.
There are many serious scientists on opposing sides of many issues, especially when it comes to theoretical biology (evolution). I view the argument “Who are you to question” only stifles debate and is a remark unworthy of a scientist.