Ken Ham's ark sinking?

[Esquilax]

Sure they are looking at the same thing. How do you know your theology is bad? If it doesn't conform to observation....it is bad. True science and true theology should not contradict each other. If they do...one of them is wrong...usually it is not hard to tell which one.

So... Um... Where is the observation that has even the remotest of links to the existence of a god?

[Minimalist]

What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?

--Richard Dawkins

[Anomalocaris]

You realize that what you've said is True Science on the one hand, and flippant lies that could never be admitted to have been lies on the other, should not contradict each other, right?

If theology cared about what observations says, there wouldn't ever have been a theology. All theology is about making shit up and then not admitting having made things up, in lieu of living within the confines of what can be known through observation.

Theology doesn't care anymore than science cares. People care. If science and theology contradict each other people know(or should know) one them is wrong. Why? Because science and theology are looking at the same thing and if both are right they should not be contradicting each other.

That is my point and I am sticking by it.

The fucking point is they don't cater to the same people.

Science caters to people who would test whether something is right. Theology caters to people who would accept what feels good to be right.

[TubbyTubby]

Theology doesn't care anymore than science cares. People care. If science and theology contradict each other people know(or should know) one them is wrong. Why? Because science and theology are looking at the same thing and if both are right they should not be contradicting each other.
That is my point and I am sticking by it.

So, let's take one major example - creation of the Universe/Earth.

1 Buga sets fire to an ocean revealing the land. Buga creates light...Tungusic

2 Yahweh creates everything in 6 days etc...Christianity

3 A formless chaos transformed into a cosmic egg over 18,000 years. Pangu creates the Earth with his axe...Pangu legend

4 Earth is a floating island of seawater hanging by ropes from the sky. A water beetle brings some mud from the bottom to create Earth...Cherokee

5 Sons of Burr lift the Earth from the sea...Norse

Which one of these (of many, many more) should we consider to see if it contradicts the widely accepted theory of an accretion disc formed from the nebula that created the solar system?

[Exian]

The creationist scientist should realize that science is looking at the world....and theology is looking at the world. Both are looking at the same thing so there should not be any contradictions between science and theology at all.

Are you suggesting creationists should abandon the literal interpretation of the bible? Or are you suggesting a council to correct the bible when it contradicts with reality?

[Heywood]

The creationist scientist should realize that science is looking at the world....and theology is looking at the world. Both are looking at the same thing so there should not be any contradictions between science and theology at all.

Are you suggesting creationists should abandon the literal interpretation of the bible? Or are you suggesting a council to correct the bible when it contradicts with reality?

I am suggesting that theist should realize that science is a means to check the accuracy of their theology. In the past Catholic theologians largely held to a literal interpretation of Genesis....today very few Catholic theologians hold such a belief. Now most take Genesis allegorically.