Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why does evolutionary science seem to be
q3psycho
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 107 (82918)
02-04-2004 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by NosyNed
02-03-2004 6:17 PM


Hagge is just a very good pastor. Boy is he fun to listen to. He doesn't have anything to do with science for proving religion or anything like that. He just sticks to the Bible.
I agree we shouldn't try to "prove" religion with science. We just take religion on faith. Can't prove faith.
But you shouldn't use evolution to disprove religion either. That's where evolution goes wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 02-03-2004 6:17 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by NosyNed, posted 02-04-2004 12:34 AM q3psycho has not replied
 Message 33 by berberry, posted 02-04-2004 1:15 AM q3psycho has not replied
 Message 37 by hitchy, posted 02-04-2004 4:22 PM q3psycho has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 32 of 107 (82921)
02-04-2004 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by q3psycho
02-04-2004 12:26 AM


Who did that?
But you shouldn't use evolution to disprove religion either. That's where evolution goes wrong.
Where did anyone use evolution to prove religion wrong?

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by q3psycho, posted 02-04-2004 12:26 AM q3psycho has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 107 (82929)
02-04-2004 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by q3psycho
02-04-2004 12:26 AM


I don't believe there are many scientists waisting their time trying to disprove religion. This whole debate was brought about by religion, not science. Science exists independent of religion, and science will continue to make new discoveries that Christians will, for some reason I cannot understand, find offensive.
I gather that you really haven't done much research on where the evo/creo debate comes from. It started because some Christians saw evolution as a threat and set out to combat it. In doing so, they came up with what is generally called the doctrine of biblical inerrancy (or infallibility). They insist that this doctrine must be defended by anyone who wants to be considered a true Christian.
In other words, they've built a house of worship on quicksand. The BI doctrine is absolutely untenable, and any person with even a modest education in science knows it. However, some Christians consider this doctrine so important that they have invented what they call "creation science", which isn't science at all, to defend it. I suppose "creation science" could be called a field of study, but this sort of study has nothing in common with science. It's raison d'tre is to defend the inerrancy of certain texts, the youngest of which are nearly 2000 years old. "Creation science" does not exist to expand human knowledge. In fact, it seeks to stop the expansion of human knowledge.
Until mainstream Christianity abandons this BI nonsense it will continue to drive thinking people away from the churches.
[This message has been edited by berberry, 02-04-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by q3psycho, posted 02-04-2004 12:26 AM q3psycho has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by NosyNed, posted 02-04-2004 10:39 AM berberry has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 34 of 107 (83020)
02-04-2004 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by berberry
02-04-2004 1:15 AM


Some flaws
I think, Barberry, that there are some flaws in your post.
However, some Christians consider this doctrine so important that they have invented what they call "creation science",
The reason this was invented was to attempt to get around the separation of church and state. It is a purely political thing.
Until mainstream Christianity abandons this BI nonsense it will continue to drive thinking people away from the churches
Mainstream Christianity abandoned this nonsense a long time ago.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by berberry, posted 02-04-2004 1:15 AM berberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 02-04-2004 10:49 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 35 of 107 (83022)
02-04-2004 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by NosyNed
02-04-2004 10:39 AM


Re: Some flaws
I think that this shows what the mainstream churches think of "creation science".
The link below is the decision of the Judege in the case against a law forcing "creation science" into Arkansa schools.
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education
The individual plaintiffs include the resident Arkansas Bishops of the United Methodist, Episcopal, Roman Catholic and African Methodist Episcopal Churches, the principal official of the Presbyterian Churches in Arkansas, other United Methodist, Southern Baptist and Presbyterian clergy...
Remember all these people were strongly enough against the law to put their names to a complaint aiming to have it removed from the statute book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by NosyNed, posted 02-04-2004 10:39 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by berberry, posted 02-04-2004 2:36 PM PaulK has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 107 (83046)
02-04-2004 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by PaulK
02-04-2004 10:49 AM


Re: Some flaws
Looks like I've been corrected. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word 'mainstream'; 'fundamentalist' would have perhaps worked better. However, I think the mainstream is shifting toward the BI doctrine, at least here in the Deep South. The shift is related to the changing attitudes on homosexual rights.
I'm a life-long Episcopalian. I quit going to church when our former, fairly liberal priest left to run a church school out-of-state and was replaced by a more conservative couple of co-priests (a married couple) from Texas. These new priests showed their colors when Bishop Robinson - the gay bishop - was consecrated.
The congregation has begun to move away from its Episcopal affiliation, and the BI doctrine is now being preached from the pulpit. I am heartened that quite a number of other congregants have also quit going to this church, particularly the elderly members (a fact that surprised me a little bit).
In any case, after re-reading my post I realize that there was another detail I left out in my second paragraph: the higher criticism. Although I don't fully understand why some Christians see evolution as a threat, I can understand why fundamentalists of the late 19th / early 20th century were opposed to the higher criticism. It probably did seem like an attack on scripture, especially to people who didn't understand it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 02-04-2004 10:49 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 02-04-2004 5:31 PM berberry has not replied

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 37 of 107 (83072)
02-04-2004 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by q3psycho
02-04-2004 12:26 AM


the christian bible, not religion in general...
...can easily be shown as flawed and full of historical errors. so what are you referring to--christianity, biblical literalists, religion in general?
quote:
But you shouldn't use evolution to disprove religion either. That's where evolution goes wrong.
who needs evolution to disprove the inerrancy of the bible? nowhere in evolution or its supporting theories does it state "the bible is wrong". the lack of corroborating archeological evidence shows that the bible is flawed. the almost identical myths from babylon, egypt, persian, greece, etc. provide a better explanation for the sources of the "word of god" than saying some entity outside of the natural world did all of this for us.
yes, i know people will say that i am just being a naturalist, but think of this, what else is there that can be or could possibly be supported with real evidence beside what we can detect in reality?
now i await the tongue-lashing about "reality". at least that is better than being horse-whipped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by q3psycho, posted 02-04-2004 12:26 AM q3psycho has not replied

  
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 107 (83090)
02-04-2004 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Itachi Uchiha
02-01-2004 5:05 PM


Just how, may I ask does your pal Tim Wallace back up his claim?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 02-01-2004 5:05 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 107 (83094)
02-04-2004 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Itachi Uchiha
02-02-2004 5:22 PM


As I have said elswhere, a scientist who proposes hypotheses that cannot be tested, and makes statements that cannot be supported by inference, observation, & experiment, does not get very far in the sphere of scientific peer-review. This Tim Wallace person is not respected by the scientific community on the subject of evolution regardless of his PhD in Chemistry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 02-02-2004 5:22 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 40 of 107 (83098)
02-04-2004 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by berberry
02-04-2004 2:36 PM


Re: Some flaws
The Episcopalian church is a branch of the CofE. If they're anything like the home crowd then they're split between almost-Catholics, liberals and Evangelicals. It is only the latter who are likely to preach BI - and not even that many of them. There may be a tendency for Evangelicals to take a more extreme position because of the internal disputes over ordaining gays.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by berberry, posted 02-04-2004 2:36 PM berberry has not replied

  
Taqless
Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 41 of 107 (83108)
02-04-2004 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jagz Beach
02-01-2004 12:36 PM


hell bent on dispelling the reality of a creator?
1) Imo, evolutionary science is being used as a scapegoat by the faithless.
2) "..reality of a creator?", shah right. Prove it.
Can we define dispassionate to mean that there is no hope of heaven; and we are going to do our damndest prove it?
1) Can't prove heaven, not trying to. Don't blame science for discovering things that challenge your idol, the Bible. Challenge yourself to get a more mature and educated concept of faith and belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jagz Beach, posted 02-01-2004 12:36 PM Jagz Beach has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by hitchy, posted 02-05-2004 12:07 AM Taqless has replied

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 42 of 107 (83217)
02-05-2004 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Taqless
02-04-2004 6:02 PM


right to the point!
thank you, taqless. one question to everyone--how did we get this far on such a simple post? i think asgara answered beautifully. i have no idea where jazzlover keeps his intriguing friends, i just wonder if they are allowed visitors on weekends. straightjacket, please!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Taqless, posted 02-04-2004 6:02 PM Taqless has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Taqless, posted 02-09-2004 7:10 PM hitchy has not replied

  
q3psycho
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 107 (83828)
02-06-2004 6:37 AM


This is a general reply because several of you responded. My goodness, there are many who have used evolution to disprove the Bible. The creation account in Genesis. Noah. The age of the earth. Are you saying I'm making this up? That evolution supports these things in the Bible?
No, evolution goes against the Bible in certain places and that's just a fact. I think the most important thing is Adam and Eve and original sin. If that is wrong then there's no point to Jesus and I might just as well then quit going to church and get drunk every saturday night. I'd rather sleep in anyway.

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2004 6:49 AM q3psycho has not replied
 Message 45 by Dr Jack, posted 02-06-2004 6:50 AM q3psycho has not replied
 Message 46 by MarkAustin, posted 02-06-2004 6:59 AM q3psycho has not replied
 Message 48 by hitchy, posted 02-06-2004 11:48 PM q3psycho has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 44 of 107 (83829)
02-06-2004 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by q3psycho
02-06-2004 6:37 AM


The literal interpretations of both the Noah Flood myth and a young Earth were disproven by geology before Darwin proposed his theory of evolution. While the evidence for evolution also contradicts a literal reading of the Flood story (e.g. the absence of the genetic bottlenecks that should exist if it were true) it had already been falsified before that became an issue.
So no, evolution is not really used to disprove either of those - because we already knew that they were false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by q3psycho, posted 02-06-2004 6:37 AM q3psycho has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 45 of 107 (83830)
02-06-2004 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by q3psycho
02-06-2004 6:37 AM


My goodness, there are many who have used evolution to disprove the Bible. The creation account in Genesis. Noah. The age of the earth. Are you saying I'm making this up? That evolution supports these things in the Bible?
Disproving the bible is a very different thing from disproving Christianity. The bible does not need to be literal and inerrant for Christianity to be true. Which is just as well as anyone supporting biblical inerrancy is fighting a losing battle.
No, evolution goes against the Bible in certain places and that's just a fact. I think the most important thing is Adam and Eve and original sin. If that is wrong then there's no point to Jesus and I might just as well then quit going to church and get drunk every saturday night. I'd rather sleep in anyway.
The story of Jesus does not require orginal sin. Only that humans are incapable of living sin-free lives. Jesus dies then for our sins, not for the sins of some couple who commited a minor transgression six thousand years ago. What kind of justice is it that means we are to punished for their sins anyway? That would be like jailing the children (and grand-children) of convicted thieves for their fathers (or grandfathers) crimes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by q3psycho, posted 02-06-2004 6:37 AM q3psycho has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024