Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 1:55 PM
29 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,019 Year: 9,055/19,786 Month: 1,477/2,119 Week: 237/576 Day: 40/98 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
567Next
Author Topic:   Forever Faithful: A Question for Creationists
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 46 of 95 (101604)
04-21-2004 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by cromwell
04-21-2004 3:38 PM


Bingo, close down evcforum
The bible is not a book about science,but one that is a guide for our well being and more importantly the question of what is known as universal sovereignty.

Perfect! Once you convince everyone of that we can close down this forum. The only argument that most of us have is with those who do think that the Bible is a book about science.

[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-21-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by cromwell, posted 04-21-2004 3:38 PM cromwell has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by cromwell, posted 04-21-2004 5:23 PM NosyNed has responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 95 (101608)
04-21-2004 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by cromwell
04-21-2004 3:38 PM


Re: Infinate wisdom
Not picking on anyone in particular, but I thought the title of this subthread was quite ironic. It should be spelled "infinite". Anyway, on to the response.

quote:
It certainly doesn't have the answers to give reason to deny an eternal God in comparison to the acceptance of an eternal endless universe and /or realm beyond.Do you personally have an answer to this?

Science says nothing about the existence or non-existence of a diety. Science only becomes a problem when people try to use scientific evidence to show that there is a diety. Creationism fits such a bill, in that it states that God's role in creation can be tested by science. What has happened is that the creationist's hypotheses have been falsified by the data. Normally, a hypothesis falsified by the data is thrown out, but because of the religious connotation of creationism it has hung around among a small percentage (<0.1%) of the scientific field. Without a religious underpinning, a 6,000 year old earth with immutable kinds would not even be talked about. It is the fault of creationists, not evolutionists, that there is friction between science and religion. If creation "scientists" followed wrote scientific methods, then there would be know disagreement about species diversity.

More philisophically, science is not about the TRUTH. That is, science will never try and tell us what the meaning of life is. Science is not meant to help guide human interaction or happiness. However, science does answer questions about how the natural world operates. In my opinion, science is the best tool for figuring out the truth behind what makes nature work while spirituality is a tool for figuring out how to use our mortal lives, the bigger TRUTH. I see no reason why the two realms should be mixed, as is shown by the number of christians, hindus, muslims, etc. that accept evolution as an accurate theory.

quote:
The bible is not a book about science,but one that is a guide for our well being and more importantly the question of what is known as universal sovereignty.

If the Bible is not a science book, why should scientific theories adhere to the Bible? The Bible can still be true, even if the events in the Bible did not take place. Like you said, the Bible is about universal sovereignty, sovereignty of God over people's lives and sovereignty over morals, not sovereignty over how nature operates. God and Jesus taught us how to live, not how life came to be.

quote:
I don't see the witch doctor as a comparison with a God of order,but back down to earth.I wouldn't go to the witch doctor,if i had a sore throat.(In reality i go to the doctor because i have no alternative.)

You do have a choice. You can pray to God for a cure. Since God knows everything and science does not know it all, wouldn't this be the better approach? The fact that you do go to a doctor means that you trust the scientific method, which resulted in the antibiotics that you will be prescribed. Also, why not a witch doctor? You can never falsify the presence of healing spirity who is controlled by the witch doctor. This is the problem that science faces, every religion has an equal claim on supernatural truth. If science were to start accepting dieties as a reliable mechanism, it would have to consider witch doctors and catholic priests on even ground. We would go from one creation account to hundreds, all with equal evidenciary support (their diety is not falsifiable). It would seem that creationists are just as exclusionary as evolutionists. While creationism excludes 200 dieties, evolutionists exclude 201.

quote:
So i've come here (to the doctor)to see if science has the answers to give,but you've already admitted that it doesn't know everything.It is therefore as infallible and as make beleivable (at this moment of time) as the theory of creationism (at this moment of time) it condemns so as fantasy.

The Bible is fallible as well, as it was written by men. Personally, I prefer thinking of the Bible as fallible. Not because I can ignore it, but because the people writing the Bible also have the same qualities as I do. Just for example, the catholic church thought the earth was the center of universe and used Bible verses to support it. What is interesting is that people's faith is not hurt by the sun being the center of the solar system, and the solar system not being the center of the universe. Should we not trust the Bible because it was wrong about the position of the Earth? Of course not, this was due to the fallibility of man, not a mistake by God.

As to science, it does have some things right. If the Big Bang Theory ends up being wrong, does this mean that bacteria actually don't cause disease? If the Theory of Relativity is wrong, does that mean our telephones will stop working? You have conflated incomplete knowledge into no knowledge. Even among christian sects there is still a large debate about the importance of faith over works. I would never claim that internal bickering about theology means that the christian faith is without any knowledge. Secondly, the fact that science claims incomplete knowledge should tell you that scientists are being honest. Without honesty and objectivity, new theories would be impossible.

[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 04-23-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by cromwell, posted 04-21-2004 3:38 PM cromwell has not yet responded

  
desdamona
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 95 (101612)
04-21-2004 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by mark24
04-21-2004 8:36 AM


Re: very interesting .
I don't believe faith in God ever is stupid.
I believe faith in man is.
We all mess up.
I may not have all your understanding in a certain field,but I know I can learn about it.The bible is right to me,but not everyone can accept it for themselves.There is alot of evidence that some people really thought they had evidence that supported evolution many times,only to learn it was all a big hoax.I'm not judging you harshly.Whatever your reasons are for not believing God before man is your business.You will live with that,and it's your free choice.Many people do change their minds about God when they are close to death.


Desdamona
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by mark24, posted 04-21-2004 8:36 AM mark24 has not yet responded

  
desdamona
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 95 (101615)
04-21-2004 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Percy
04-21-2004 9:22 AM


Re: evidence?
Well,in a nutshell,thats the difference between you and me.Some men had reason to believe God,and some knew better than to mis-quote the LORD,I don't believe the men who wrote the bible were confused,yet to those who believe in man over God,it's not hard to see why they feel the way that they do.Those who love doing the very things God hates will not be able to understand what the bible says,even if they think they do.God is much pickier than many people think.Salvation is offered to all people,but not all people will be chosen because not all people can humble themselves.Putting God first and self last gets results,not demanding God to show you evidence past what he has already shown you.Creation testifies that God lives.Can you invent a plant without the plant already being in existence? Hybrids still come from plants that were already here. Can a plant be invented without a seed,ect...? NOT!!!


Desdamona
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Percy, posted 04-21-2004 9:22 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 04-24-2004 7:43 PM desdamona has responded

  
cromwell
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 95 (101616)
04-21-2004 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by NosyNed
04-21-2004 4:34 PM


Perfect ! If there was such a thing as perfect.
"The only argument that most of us have is with those who do think that the Bible is a book about science".

Do they?! Do you find this to be an insult to science? If so are you saying that science has all of the answers so that the bible students have no right to say that it is scientific.Surely scientists can only condemn if they prove their own reasonings and evidence as infallible?

I've heard that it is said that evolutionist using the science of evolution,that this is their religion and that life from nothing is their God.

You,as a prolific poster.Have you any reasonings on my previous question about scientists recognising the undeniable endless eternal universe and the realm beyond,but not recognising the eternal God?

Its late here in the U.K.Gotta go.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by NosyNed, posted 04-21-2004 4:34 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Loudmouth, posted 04-21-2004 5:37 PM cromwell has not yet responded
 Message 52 by NosyNed, posted 04-21-2004 6:39 PM cromwell has not yet responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 95 (101625)
04-21-2004 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by cromwell
04-21-2004 5:23 PM


Re: Perfect ! If there was such a thing as perfect.
quote:
Surely scientists can only condemn if they prove their own reasonings and evidence as infallible?

Actually, it is the opposite. Science can condemn religiously driven science because creationists claim infallibility. Science freely admits it could be wrong. This is why theories are continuously tested by new evidence and are never accepted as 100% proven. Science's statment that it is not perfect is actually one of its better attributes, as compared to people who claim they are right and nothing will ever budge them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by cromwell, posted 04-21-2004 5:23 PM cromwell has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by desdamona, posted 04-23-2004 7:35 PM Loudmouth has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 52 of 95 (101654)
04-21-2004 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by cromwell
04-21-2004 5:23 PM


Insults to what?
Do you find this to be an insult to science?

No, not particularly. However, I know a number of Christians and some who post here that find it an insult to Christianity and the Bible.

If so are you saying that science has all of the answers so that the bible students have no right to say that it is scientific.

As has already been noted we are very clear that science doesn't have all the answers even in those areas that we expect it to, perhaps, someday have answers. However, We do have some answers. There have also been a significant number of posts discussing a little of what would be considered scientific. If someone tells me that the Bible says that the earth is only 6,000 years old then I will tell them that as a science book the Bible is wrong.

Surely scientists can only condemn if they prove their own reasonings and evidence as infallible?

No. Why would you say that? The reasonings and evidence are the best available. It is there for you or anyone to critise. Some ideas in science are only very fancy speculations ( e.g., the brane hypothosis), others have been through decades of study and critisism and are darn sure things now. Some fall between those extremes. Are you suggesting that someone has to be "infallible", perfectly correct in all things all the time before what they have to say on one topic can be given any consideration?

That "wrong" up there about the earth's age is, even considering all the talk about tentativeness of scientific theories and being subject to further testing and so on, a very, very sure bet indeed. It is right up there with the sun raising tomorrow.

I have the impression that you might disagree with this. If so there is a dates and dating forum to discuss it. We find that Biblical "literalists" tend to shy away from there.

I've heard that it is said that evolutionist using the science of evolution,that this is their religion and that life from nothing is their God.

I'm sure you have. I've heard it too. So what? There are threads somewhere discussing that. If you agree with it you either have a very odd definition of religion, no knowledge of the religious views of many scientists or both. There are oodles of Christian biologists so it seems that where ever you heard that you might want to consider a not so very reliable source of information.

You,as a prolific poster.Have you any reasonings on my previous question about scientists recognising the undeniable endless eternal universe and the realm beyond,but not recognising the eternal God?

LOL, I'm not sure that typing speed makes me a source of any profound wisdom. However, I'll take a shot at it.

I don't think that many scientists would say that anything we think we know about the universe outside of the 13.7 or so billion years of it's existance that we can study in some way is "undeniable". For it to be "eternal" I would presume there was something "before" the big bang and we would have to redefine "universe" to include things not currently observable. A scientific answer to questions that you seem to be posing would, to me, be: "We don't know."

Something like 40% of mainstream, practising scientists are "believers" of one sort or another. I take it from that statistic that they recognize an "eternal God". Based on that your statement is founded on a mispreception.

[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-21-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by cromwell, posted 04-21-2004 5:23 PM cromwell has not yet responded

  
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 3560 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 53 of 95 (102132)
04-23-2004 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by desdamona
04-21-2004 3:11 AM


Re: Good job
Thank you Desdamona,

If you have seen Otello then you know why I imagine you a virtueous and lovely woman. may God bless you always. It is nice to have an holy fan.

Bob, Alice, and Eve


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by desdamona, posted 04-21-2004 3:11 AM desdamona has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by desdamona, posted 04-23-2004 5:51 AM BobAliceEve has not yet responded

    
desdamona
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 95 (102133)
04-23-2004 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by BobAliceEve
04-23-2004 5:38 AM


Re: Good job
You are very precious and kind!!!
I have not seen it,but You have made my Day alot brighter!
It's wonderful to hear such beautiful words from someone like you.
May God be always gracious to you,in Jesus,amen.
in his great love,


Desdamona
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by BobAliceEve, posted 04-23-2004 5:38 AM BobAliceEve has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 04-23-2004 10:25 AM desdamona has responded

  
desdamona
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 95 (102134)
04-23-2004 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dr Jack
04-21-2004 7:08 AM


Re: more evidence
well Mr. Jack, no offense intended, but God did create the animal we now call dog. Some say the name Caleb means dog or mongruel, but I think it's a very nice name personally.
Also,God is only one name for the LORD Almighty.
I'm not knocking you down in anyway, I just wanted to share this with you.


Desdamona
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dr Jack, posted 04-21-2004 7:08 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 56 of 95 (102156)
04-23-2004 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by desdamona
04-23-2004 5:51 AM


Re: Good job
You didn't correct BobAliceEve's presumption that your user ID is Othellian. I was assuming it sprang from some other source, since Shakespeare spelled it Desdemona. If you need to modify your user ID, you can do it on your profile page.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by desdamona, posted 04-23-2004 5:51 AM desdamona has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by desdamona, posted 04-23-2004 7:26 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
desdamona
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 95 (102287)
04-23-2004 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Percy
04-23-2004 10:25 AM


Re: Good job
Yes,but I haven't actually seen the play. I know what it's about. Otello is very interesting to me. No,I don't want to change the ID,but yes,that is where I got the name. I am very delighted that someone noticed that. Also,it really brightens my day when someone compares me to a righteous person.That was the sweetest thing anyone has ever said to me,next to my husband and close friends,& family.
That was truly very thoughtful and kind,and I take it as such.
Blessings to you,


Desdamona
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 04-23-2004 10:25 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
desdamona
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 95 (102291)
04-23-2004 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Loudmouth
04-21-2004 5:37 PM


Re: Perfect ! If there was such a thing as perfect.
We don't claim we are perfect,we claim that God is perfect.
If you don't have the facts and proof,it's faith based.That is why we say it is faith verses faith.
We know that scientists admit science is not perfect and that they don't have or know all the answers.So, you must have faith in a certain idea or ideas that lead up to your belief.It is a faith based idea,like being a christian is faith based. Yes,the bible states truth to us in our view of what truth is,just like what your belief tells you. The only major difference is that we believe God is God of all,where as you believe that animals and people are basically related to each other and that people are really animals.Your faith is based on this and the idea that life came into being by chance.


Desdamona
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Loudmouth, posted 04-21-2004 5:37 PM Loudmouth has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Loudmouth, posted 04-23-2004 7:58 PM desdamona has responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 95 (102297)
04-23-2004 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by desdamona
04-23-2004 7:35 PM


Re: Perfect ! If there was such a thing as perfect.
quote:
We don't claim we are perfect,we claim that God is perfect.

Scientists don't think they are perfect either, that is why we have a process called peer review. Within this system, before a scientific paper is published it must pass through a review board that decides if the science was done correctly. On top of that, the exact methodology that the scientist used must be included. This allows anyone to repeat the work that the other scientist did. Science is a field where no one trusts anyone else to such a high degree that I am surprised there are theories that everyone agrees on.

quote:
If you don't have the facts and proof,it's faith based.That is why we say it is faith verses faith.

You may not know this, but gravity is still a theory. So would you say that when you go down a set of stairs you are putting faith in the theory of gravity? Scientists ACCEPT the theory of evolution because it makes reliable predictions about what they observe every day in the field, just like you accept the theory of gravity because it has never let you down (pardon the pun). It is actually more accurate to say that scientists TRUST the theory of evolution because they have tested it. It is not faith versus faith, but trust (evo) vs. faith (creo).

quote:
We know that scientists admit science is not perfect and that they don't have or know all the answers.So, you must have faith in a certain idea or ideas that lead up to your belief.

Scientists freely admit that they don't know everything. If they said they knew everything they would be out of a job. Scientists construct models that they test. If the model passes those tests, then the theory is deemed trustworthy. No scientific model or theory is ever taken on faith, except by the non-scientific laity which would rather take the words of scientists than to delve into the problem themselves. At its roots, the theory of evolution is a model that makes reliable predictions and is able to explain ALL of the data within the biological sciences. As soon as the theory of evolution is no longer able to do this, it will get chucked. Would you throw away your faith if there were contradictory evidence? Of course not, because you have faith unlike the conditional trust that scientists have in their theories.

quote:
Yes,the bible states truth to us in our view of what truth is,just like what your belief tells you. The only major difference is that we believe God is God of all,where as you believe that animals and people are basically related to each other and that people are really animals.Your faith is based on this and the idea that life came into being by chance.

I will admit that my christian faith has waned appreciably in the last 15 years. However, none of this is due to my interpretation of nature through the lens of evolutionary biology. Faith is a belief in the absence of evidence while scientific theories are models supported by evidence. With respect to spirituality, I practice as you do, following my heart instead of scientific theories. However, when it comes to describing nature I rely on logic and evidence as explanatory tools. For me, nature and spirit are mutually exclusive and don't cross barriers. My opinion, and feel free to deny it, but you seem to tie the two together. You seem to indicate that your faith is tied into the accuracy of Genesis instead of the Truth of Jesus's teachings. Many christians, agnostics, and athiests agree that how we describe the truth about nature is separate from the theologic Truth of the Bible. It is not faith versus faith, merely two schools of investigation whose goals and methods are polar opposites.

I hope this wasn't too muddled. Scientific papers are easy, but I still have a tough time communicating philosophical positions. If you need clarification on any of this, let me know.

Have a great weekend,

Loudmouth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by desdamona, posted 04-23-2004 7:35 PM desdamona has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by desdamona, posted 04-23-2004 9:49 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded
 Message 61 by desdamona, posted 04-23-2004 9:51 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

  
desdamona
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 95 (102316)
04-23-2004 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Loudmouth
04-23-2004 7:58 PM


Re: Perfect ! If there was such a thing as perfect.
When you say Scientists,do you mean all scientists,because if you do not know this already by now,many if not most scientists today aggressively disagree,and this fact is proven by those who are actual scientists.Read books,reviews,articles,and even web sites and you'll see this happening every where. To claim that all scientists are in agreement is making a bold statement that cannot be proven.


Desdamona
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Loudmouth, posted 04-23-2004 7:58 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 04-23-2004 10:28 PM desdamona has responded

  
Prev123
4
567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019