EvC Forum: How Do Scientists Believe in God and Evolution?

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: How Do Scientists Believe in God and Evolution?

Coyote

Member (Idle past 2125 days)

Posts: 6117

Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 36 of 145 (467975)
05-26-2008 2:22 AM

Reply to: Message 31 by Wumpini
05-25-2008 10:21 PM

Re: global flood

I do not know what the evidence supports or does not support. I have never had any reason to look at the evidence for Creation or the Flood until now.

But scientists have. As far as the flood goes, the last of the major early creationist geologists seeking to document the global flood gave up in 1831.

Since then the evidence against a global flood has increased greatly. I believe I have cited some from my own research, but you haven't responded to my posts.

Face it, the global flood about 4,500 years ago is a myth.

Edited by Coyote, : typo

This message is a reply to:
	Message 31 by Wumpini, posted 05-25-2008 10:21 PM		Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 40 by Wumpini, posted 05-26-2008 10:48 AM		Coyote has replied

Coyote

Member (Idle past 2125 days)

Posts: 6117

Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 45 of 145 (468030)
05-26-2008 3:10 PM

Reply to: Message 40 by Wumpini
05-26-2008 10:48 AM

Re: global flood

Wumpini writes:

Coyote writes:

Face it, the global flood about 4,500 years ago is a myth.

Maybe I should take your word for it, and that would save me a lot of study. What do you think?

Yup. My word and that of tens of thousands of other scientists.

And in addition to our "word" we have mountains of evidence to back it up.

You could do worse.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 40 by Wumpini, posted 05-26-2008 10:48 AM		Wumpini has not replied

Coyote

Member (Idle past 2125 days)

Posts: 6117

Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 84 of 145 (469113)
06-03-2008 10:17 PM

Reply to: Message 83 by Wumpini
06-03-2008 10:00 PM

My argument is that if it is written down in the inspired Word of God then it is true.

What if there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary? I think the "global flood" is sufficiently investigated and disproved to show that not everything in scripture is accurate.

What do you then? Do you ignore the evidence before your very eyes, and pretend it's not there?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 83 by Wumpini, posted 06-03-2008 10:00 PM		Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 92 by Wumpini, posted 06-04-2008 4:34 AM		Coyote has not replied

Coyote

Member (Idle past 2125 days)

Posts: 6117

Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 110 of 145 (469403)
06-05-2008 1:07 PM

Reply to: Message 108 by brendatucker
06-05-2008 12:50 PM

Re: A new theory of evolution

Maybe Tom Cruise would be interested.

To me it sounds like a lot on nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 108 by brendatucker, posted 06-05-2008 12:50 PM		brendatucker has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 111 by brendatucker, posted 06-05-2008 1:25 PM		Coyote has replied

Coyote

Member (Idle past 2125 days)

Posts: 6117

Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 113 of 145 (469410)
06-05-2008 1:39 PM

Reply to: Message 111 by brendatucker
06-05-2008 1:25 PM

Re: A new theory of evolution

No one asked you to major in this field of study, but it would be nice if you could at least acknowledge that it is here.

I did acknowledge that field of study. I suggested that it is nonsense.

Perhaps you can convince me otherwise?

If you wish to try, start with evidence.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 111 by brendatucker, posted 06-05-2008 1:25 PM		brendatucker has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 121 by brendatucker, posted 06-05-2008 4:38 PM		Coyote has replied

Coyote

Member (Idle past 2125 days)

Posts: 6117

Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 122 of 145 (469448)
06-05-2008 4:52 PM

Reply to: Message 121 by brendatucker
06-05-2008 4:38 PM

Re: A new theory of evolution

This theory includes all of the evidence that exists in the world because it embraces the work of science as its own. This theory wants everything accomplished by science EXCEPT the belittling and denial of the value of religion.

By using this theory, we can embrace both sides of the debates and create a patient understanding of the two points of view. Science shows what? That forms progress. That was known long before Darwin. Science shows a method from which to accumulate information. So does religion. The information that we received from religious people such as THE SECRET DOCTRINE by H.P. Blavatsky is instrumental in advancing the goals of both sides of the debate.

You are using the term "theory" incorrectly. It does not mean an idea. In science when that term is used it refers to an explanation that covers all known facts, has withstood numerous tests, and which has successfully made predictions.

Here are some definitions I have put together:

Source

As for Blavatsky -- not interested.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 121 by brendatucker, posted 06-05-2008 4:38 PM		brendatucker has not replied

Coyote

Member (Idle past 2125 days)

Posts: 6117

Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 138 of 145 (469779)
06-07-2008 1:47 PM

Reply to: Message 137 by brendatucker
06-07-2008 1:36 PM

Re: Materialism and Spirituality

If evolution predicts higher and higher forms in the future, couldn't we assume that an endless chain of life in front of us is a prediction of myriads of gods?

Evolution does not predict "higher and higher forms" in the future.

Your basic premise is flawed.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 137 by brendatucker, posted 06-07-2008 1:36 PM		brendatucker has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

5 online now:	dwise1, nwr, Phat, Taq, xongsmith
Newest Member:	popoi
Post Volume:	Total: 916,356 Year: 3,613/9,624 Month: 484/974 Week: 97/276 Day: 25/23 Hour: 0/0