Christianity and science

[Fez]

I'm not arguing with God, I'm arguing with people who try to interpret the Bible as an introductory textbook in biology and physics.

Bowap, it is not people on this thread who are arguing that the bible is an introductory textbook on biology and physics, it is some who are trying to distort the living word of God. By faith I believe, and no monkey, monkey man, lemur, vegetable or mineral will change that faith. I have nothing, absolutly nothing to prove, I believe, therefore I am.

[Guest]

I'm not arguing with God, I'm arguing with people who try to interpret the Bible as an introductory textbook in biology and physics.

Bowap, it is not people on this thread who are arguing that the bible is an introductory textbook on biology and physics, it is some who are trying to distort the living word of God. By faith I believe, and no monkey, monkey man, lemur, vegetable or mineral will change that faith. I have nothing, absolutely nothing to prove, I believe, therefore I am.

The Truth

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 3:31

And There Is No Laboratory In The Solar System Which Can Refute It!

Believe Or Perish

Love, Joe

[ParanoidAndroid]

Just an overall observation on the recent two or three pages, but something that seems to stand out as I read it is that some people seem to be posting science that most Christians are unable to respond to, and therefore incapable of answering. The stated implication from several members is then that if these people posted on forums frequented by Scientists well-versed in Creation-theory they would all be hammered back down to size.

But - does not the opposite also work? It is true that most here are not Creation Scientists that is also the biggest downfall as well. Since we are not Creation Scientists why do we put so much store in what they have to say? We are not scientists so just like we cannot argue against those who want to beat up on us poor unscientific folk, it also means that we are not qualified and not able to comment on evolutionary science, for the very same reason.

Just a thought

Regards, PA

[Smalcald]

By creationism I mean the notion that fully formed adult organisms were essentially 'poofed' into being, unrelated to everything else, pretty much as a literal reading of various religious texts would indicate. On this forum were are talking really about Christian creationism but there are of course lots of Muslim and Hindu creationists, and those who follow other religions. There is also what is known is evolutionary creationism, which is essentially theistic evolution and not what I am referring to as 'creationism' here. Creationists basically deny the theory of biological evolution. I would say that there are two main proposition to this; i) universal common descent, i.e. all living organisms on the planet are descended from a common ancestor/ancestral gene pool and so are genealogically related if you go back far enough in time, and ii) this diversification was produced by natural processes; natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift etc acting on variations. I would generally describe a creationist as someone who denies these principles and claims that divine intervention and supernatural miracles were required to produce life as we see it. It does of course become rather nebulous when we consider the vast range of views held by Christians. Some creationists accept the scientific evidence for the age of the earth, others reject it (as well as pretty much all of modern science) and insist that the earth/universe is 6,000-10,000 years old. Moreover, if we take someone like Michael Behe (proponent of Intelligent Design), is he a creationist? He accepts common descent, but does not think that natural processes were sufficient to produce life as we see it today, so he thinks God perhaps actively guided the mutations (an idea that is not unreasonable but for which no empirical scientific evidence could either vindicate or falsify), or maybe planted the the first living cell on the Earth front-loaded with information (an idea Ken Miller calls "an absolutely hopeless genetic fantasy," or what Sean Carroll describes as "utter nonsense that disregards fundamentals of genetics"). I'm not sure how I would refer to his position but whatever it is, I don't see that it has much merit, either theologically or scientifically.

Okay thanks. I am a Christian and along with close to one billion others we would not have a major problem with evolution as a method used by God but of course realize that the scientific method was never designed to prove the existence of God or prove if God is guiding all creation.

Obviously there will always be the problem of the "before" or infinite regress, for any discussion of first things. But I don't think science as a tool was ever designed nor has the ability to answer what are essentially philosophical or existential questions. We would not need modern or ancient philosophy as a field if this were the case we could simply ask a physicist or a biologist for the answers, which of course is silly, they can't answer those questions.

The Christian scriptures themselves show a view of relativity in regards to time, thus I don't feel compunction to view time in a literal way within Christian Scripture. Scripture itself claims that with God thousands of years are the same as one year or vice versa, essentially existing in the past present and future all at once, which makes some sense. They also claim that before Abraham was, I am; an intentional mixing of tenses and time.

So for me it makes no sense to get wrapped up in time or dating. But it also makes no sense to act as if something can be created out of nothing, that a void can be filled where nothing existed before the before.

Anyway peace to you, continue on.

[MorningGlory]

Just an overall observation on the recent two or three pages, but something that seems to stand out as I read it is that some people seem to be posting science that most Christians are unable to respond to, and therefore incapable of answering. The stated implication from several members is then that if these people posted on forums frequented by Scientists well-versed in Creation-theory they would all be hammered back down to size.

But - does not the opposite also work? It is true that most here are not Creation Scientists that is also the biggest downfall as well. Since we are not Creation Scientists why do we put so much store in what they have to say? We are not scientists so just like we cannot argue against those who want to beat up on us poor unscientific folk, it also means that we are not qualified and not able to comment on evolutionary science, for the very same reason.

Just a thought

Regards, PA

I don't agree; I'm perfectly capable of understanding all the data that has been put forth here and I'm sure others are as well. I don't believe the ones piling up mountains of data are scientists either. Well read lay people with an agenda would be my guess. Anyone with access to google can increase their knowledge tenfold if they try. I first did this in self defense; now I do it simply because I want to know.

[georgedrw81]

I'm not arguing with God, I'm arguing with people who try to interpret the Bible as an introductory textbook in biology and physics.

Bowap, it is not people on this thread who are arguing that the bible is an introductory textbook on biology and physics, it is some who are trying to distort the living word of God. By faith I believe, and no monkey, monkey man, lemur, vegetable or mineral will change that faith. I have nothing, absolutely nothing to prove, I believe, therefore I am.

The Truth

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 3:31

And There Is No Laboratory In The Solar System Which Can Refute It!

Believe Or Perish

Love, Joe

Right

[Guest shiloh357]

Just an overall observation on the recent two or three pages, but something that seems to stand out as I read it is that some people seem to be posting science that most Christians are unable to respond to, and therefore incapable of answering. The stated implication from several members is then that if these people posted on forums frequented by Scientists well-versed in Creation-theory they would all be hammered back down to size.

But - does not the opposite also work? It is true that most here are not Creation Scientists that is also the biggest downfall as well. Since we are not Creation Scientists why do we put so much store in what they have to say? We are not scientists so just like we cannot argue against those who want to beat up on us poor unscientific folk, it also means that we are not qualified and not able to comment on evolutionary science, for the very same reason.

Just a thought

If you notice we are not quoting or citing Creation Scientists. In fact, so far the only people here quoting them are the ones trying to discredit them.

We are not putting our faith in Creation Scientists, but in the unchanging, inspired, infallible, inerrant Word oF God.

The fact is we are not really making a lot of heavy scientific arguments, at least not for my part, and frankly, if these Evolutionists are so convinced that the Creation Scientists are second class light weights, who can barely think their way out of a paper bag, they need to go Creation Science messageboards and debate them over there. If They really believe they can successfully shut down the Creationist model, then they shouldn't be wasting their time with people who are not claiming to be Creation Scientists.

I cannot argue science. I am not a scientist. And unlike my Evolutionary counterparts, I don't post links from creationist websites in this thread. I simply draw attention to what the Bible says. I cannot provide a scientific response, but I can provide a theological response and I can show why Evolution and Christianity cannot co-exist and why no serious evolutionist can be a true follower of Christ.

[Shiloh62]

A collection of 23 articles promoting a positive relationship between Evangelical Christianity and evolutionary science.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14157160/An-Evan...ue-on-Evolution

Yes, but look at who the author is. Probably not something to be taken seriously.

[MorningGlory]

How can you say you know what macroevolution is and then when I provided observed instances of it you simply say, "Nope?" I'm afraid that closing your eyes and refusing to accept facts does not make those facts disappear. You agreed that macroevolution is evolutionary change at or above the species level, so species is the taxonomic level representing the dividing point between micro and macroevolution, and thus speciation constitutes observed evidence of macroevolution. If you do not accept this then you will need to provide a better explanation than simply saying "Nope."

No...I don't. "Nope" just seems to suit the occasion.

You continue to reject evidence for common descent without presenting any reason for your rejection. If you accept paternity testing as accurate then you must also accept the same methods which allow scientists to establish the common ancestry of various species, including us.

No...I don't.

[MorningGlory]

I cannot argue science. I am not a scientist. And unlike my Evolutionary counterparts, I don't post links from creationist websites in this thread. I simply draw attention to what the Bible says. I cannot provide a scientific response, but I can provide a theological response and I can show why Evolution and Christianity cannot co-exist and why no serious evolutionist can be a true follower of Christ.

Your version of Christianity perhaps can't co-exist with science, but theistic evolutionists have no difficulty. But I am puzzled, Shiloh, why does evolution, in your view, contradict Jesus? I have never thought this myself.

'Theistic Evolutionist' is an oxymoron.