|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Bible 2003 Edition by God et al. | |||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5871 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I have opened a new thread in Is It Science? to enable continuation of the most recent off-topic conversation between Joralex, Schraf, John, et al.
|
|||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
A reply will soon be posted at Quetzal's new topic -- EvC Forum: Joralex: Tentativity or Dogmatism?. Sorry for the sluggish response.
Oops... replied to the wrong person. This was meant for Joralex. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 03-27-2003]
|
|||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I am talking about evolution, not abiogenesis. The evidence, however, which suggests that it is possible for abiogenesis to occur, is observable to everyone. No scientist would say that abiogenesis theory is anywhere near as well-supported as the theory of evolution, which explains what has happened to life once it appeared. How that life first appeared is much, mush less understood. Your objection is a false one. Just because no one has produced life from non life doesn't mean it won't be. To point at a gap in our knowledge and claim that God is responsible has been tried throughout the history of science.
quote: I agree that it is ridiculous. However, you seem to be saying that the very nature of science, by definition, promotes philosophical materialism because it ignores God or the supernatural in it's tennets and how it is conducted. What you are suggesting, then, is that science SHOULD include God and the supernatural in it's tennets and how it is conducted.
quote: Exactly. So, are you now reversing your contention that science requires scientists to be materialistic naturalists?
quote: Even if life started by way of abiogenesis, who are you to say that God didn't have a hand in it?
quote: Naturalists are those who believe that nature is all there is. It is not required of scientists that one hold to the philosophy of natualism in order to do good science. As evidence I will remind you that there are thousands of religious scientists (I can think of at least 6 in my husband's Neuroscience graduate department alone) who do excellent science.
quote: quote: Except that there are still Creationists who claim that change only happens within "kinds" (whatever that means), and that those "kinds" are fixed and unchangeable.
quote: Yes. Why is this a problem?
quote: Your simplistic definition, "Able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring," is only one definition of several, it's true. Nature is messy. Nature is complicated. That is why simplistic explanations of concepts such as "speciation" often end up needing to be expanded and clarified. Do you fault Physics for having several definitions of "energy" depending upon the situation? So, why do you fault Biology for expanding upon the concept of speciation as we learn more about it?
quote: I have never hidden this from anyone. You are new here.
quote: "Accusation?" It is a fact, actually, that Christian fundamentalists have been trying to get their religion taught in science classrooms for a long time.
quote: Philosophic naturalism is not required to be held by any scientist to do good science, so I fail to understand how you can say that science is religious in the least. Science ignores the supernatural because scince deals with the natural.
quote: If you have a scienctific alternative to evolution to put forth, let's hear it. It must be falsifiable, and have positive evidence to support it, and be better supported by the evidence than evolution. I can't wait to see it!
quote: Please provide evidence from science textbooks that supports this assertion, please. Do you believe that, along with teaching mainstream Physics and Gravitational Theory we should teach children that invisible fairies pushing down on everything causes gravity?
quote: I think it is a simple thing to understand that science deals with nature and what we can detect about nature with our five senses. Religion and philosophy deal with other things. They are seperate.
quote: quote: I don't think you quite understand. Would you be willing to give up your belief in God if the evidence warranted?
quote: It depends on how sure I want to be. If I was a detective, I would want lots of corroborating evidence, such as flight records, picures of you in front of the Opera House, other people's eyewitness accounts, a video tape would be good, phone records from when you called from your Australian hotel, rental receipts, etc. Why do you ask?
quote: Thousands and thousands of similar "instances" (observations and inferences) come together into a picture, which is what we call the Theory of Evolution. All of science consists of "interpretive paradigms". All data is interpreted in the light of past and current research. Every time we find a new fossil, for example, and it bears out a prediction of the theory, that is a test that the theory has survived. This has been repeated thousands and thousands of times, making the ToE one of the best-supported scientific theories in existence.
quote: AHA! Now the truth comes out. You could care less about scientific evidence. You have decided that Evolution MUST be wrong because it contradicts your religion, regardless of the evidence. Sorry, science does not operate or progress according to how it's findings clash or contradict a particular religious sect's doctrine. That your religion can't deal with the findings of science is not science's problem. At least you Christians don't get to burn us "heretics" at the stake anymore, or arrest us for blasphemy and throw us in the stocks.
quote: Hey, you made the insinuation, not me.
quote: OK, let me get this straight. It's BAD that science CHANGES, as when the ToE was altered with Punk Eek, right? It ISN'T GOOD that science changes in the light of new evidence and corrects it's mistakes, right? Is this what you are saying?
quote: quote: Good.
quote: No, I am not. You said that it is highly suspect that the ToE ever changed (like with Punk Eek). I pointed out that Physics changed a great deal when Newton's laws were shown to be incorrect in certain cases, and Einstein's Relativity was adopted. To remain consistent, you would have to be reject every advancement in science simply because it is new, because this is what you are doing with evolution/the Modern Synthesis.
quote: That's why Creation science isn't science. You ignore or twist evidence which contradicts your religion. From the AiG Statement of Faith:
Statement of Faith
| Answers in Genesis
"1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge. * By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." According to these statments, revelation is of primary importance, NOT evidence. This, by definition, means that any evidence which contradicts revelation may be ignored. This is not science. It is deeply anti-science.
quote: I don't care how religions interpret scientific findings, as long as they do not try to call what they do "science". If you are "interpreting" through the filter of what you are "supposed" to find because you looked in the Bible before you ever looked at the evidence, then you cannot possibly be doing science.
quote: Please explain how F=ma applies to your faith.
quote: What "certain positions" are you talking about? Please give examples. ------------------"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."
|
|||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2764 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
I discovered an interesting exchange in this long-dead thread; and having no patience to read every tedious word of its many pages - I am wondering whether anyone else picked up on this:
From message #16.
quote: I checked and found that Jorge has not answered messages since sometime in March. Guess he can't handle the truth. I would have loved to ask him about the so-called "original version." He goes on to assert that the Bible is good enough "as it is." So, I am wondering, Which version is good enough "as it is"?Is it the "original version" (which no one alive has ever seen nor ever will)? OR, Is it one of the more than 100 "as is" English versions which have been produced because no one really knows what the "original" meant to say? Yeah, that's reliable! If God's intention was to spread mass confusion. ------------------Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University Major - Biology; Minor - Religion Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine Embryology - La Sierra University Biblical languages - Pacific Union College Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024