Scientists and Christianity...

[Enoch07]

Evolution is not a belief. It's a scientific theory. You either accept it or you don't. It's not my way, Enoch, and it's not about equal rights, it's science. Does it work, or doesn't it? Geology says the earth is 4.56 billion years old. If you accept the science of Geology, you agree. If you say the earth is some other age, then you reject modern Geology. It's not about feelings, beliefs, or rights. It's about reality and science. Do you accept science, or do you reject it, or do you accept some of it and reject others? If you think the earth is 6000 years old, and Noah built a boat and put two of each "kind" in it, and there was a global flood, then you basically reject most of modern science, that denies any of those things happened. Sorry, that's just how it is.

It is about understanding and acceptance, regardless of what anyone does or does not believe. This goes for all aspects of life.

 

[Autodidact]

Forget it..Good luck

What? Enoch, I get the feeling that some beliefs that are important to you are being threatened, and that's frightening to you. You might want to take it slowly, maybe start with Geology before tackling Biology. I also get the impression you have very little science education. You should try it--it's great.

But these things have nothing to do with feelings or relationships, only with truth.

You talk about rights. It's your right to reject science, and live based on magic. I defend your right to do so. But you can't logically both reject science and say you accept it. It's not about rights; it's about logic. Just be honest and admit that's what you're doing. To do otherwise is dishonest.

 

[Enoch07]

What? Enoch, I get the feeling that some beliefs that are important to you are being threatened, and that's frightening to you. You might want to take it slowly, maybe start with Geology before tackling Biology. I also get the impression you have very little science education. You should try it--it's great.

My beliefs are not threatened at all. Only thing shaken is my belief in equality. I accept a good deal about science and religion. I just make leeway for both. I won't be told what I can or cannot do by anybody. Especially by someone who I take a lot of crap for, then they turn around and crap on me, are you kidding? And still you continue with the insults. You know nothing about me or my education. You have a lot of nerve.

 

[themadhair]

See this is where you prove my point about people skills.

This is my point about reality skills.

Since pretty much all of modern science disagrees with six-day creation, the flood, a 6,000 year old earth, etc. your beliefs are rejecting pretty much all of modern science. If that isn’t a retardant to science then I don’t know what is.

You are just being hateful now.

So pointing out that pretty much all of modern science contradicts your literalistic biblical beliefs is hateful? Truth hurts sometimes, and most other religions managed to reconcile with science.

I donate money for many causes, some scientific, but at least they are nice enough to not spit in my face and call me an idiot.

So pointing out the state of modern science as it relates to your literalistic beliefs is spitting in your face and calling you an idiot? And for the record, you clearly do not support science otherwise you wouldn’t be in active denial of it. You can try and convince yourself otherwise, but it isn’t going to fly.

You are the one claiming religious beliefs prevents you from advancing scientific knowledge.

I quote myself since you strawmanned me: “Many of the medicines and vaccinations you use were developed by directly applying knowledge of evolutionary theory and research. Science research produces better medicines and treatments that benefit us all. Unfortunately, some people who are in denial of reality due to their biblical literalism are actively working to decay the quality of science education. This puts that scientific research at risk – research that has the potential to benefits us all greatly.
It is ironic that your literalist beliefs are threatening scientific prosperity, and the medicinal benefits that prosperity brings, and you bring up helping sick people.”

Genetic research of genes 150,000 years old helps to make better medicines for todays humans.

It does actually. By having a more fuller understanding of the human genome, and its ancestry, we can use this information to adapt antibodies in other organisms for use in treating human conditions. Understanding human genetics and its ancestry helps give a fuller understanding to genetic disorders. Scientific knowledge, in and of itself, provides the understanding on which new medicines and treatments are developed. I know you want to ignore that your literalistic beliefs contradict this very useful research and even want to feign self-righteousness when it is pointed out to you.

Even though said genes have evolved during that time.

Says the person who denies evolutionary theory. Haing your cake and eating it too?

Who's playing the martyr again?

You actually. You have the right to hold a series of beliefs that contradict reality and I have the right to point that contradiction out to you. Unfortunately, people like yourself help prop up the war on science that is ongoing by being uninformed. The whole ‘religious persecution’ angle doesn’t really cut it as a defence.

Believe in accepting different peoples views and mind sets. You are telling me that I have to chose one or the other. I say we can all live together regardless of views and mindsets. Wonder what the ACLU would think of that.

The ACLU represented science in the Dover trial to protect the standards of science education in the US. While you have a right to hold your own beliefs, I have the right to challenge the subset of those beliefs that flat-out contradict reality and modern science. The reason I do so is because the scientific education of our children really is too important to allow this war on science to continue unchallenged.

That argument is so old and worn out. I support gay rights and do not care if creationism is taught in schools or not. So your arguments do not apply to me.

Actually, in term of creationism, they do. The fact that you don’t seem to be capable of acknowledging just how incompatible your literalistic beliefs are with modern science is striking. You cannot claim to be supportive of modern medicines if you deny the very scientific basis much of that modern medicine is based upon. It is simply wilful ignorance. And this wilful ignorance, in people such as yourself, is proving the support for the anti-science movement.

I don't even want or need a thanks, just don't crap over all my beliefs, is that too much to ask?

Is pointing out the contradiction of your beliefs with science crapping over those beliefs? If so, then maybe you’re the one with the problem. If you hold demonstrably false beliefs why can’t that be pointed out?

I accept a good deal about science and religion.

You really don’t accept a good deal about science Enoch07. The above comment is hollow, meaningless and completely at odds with holding to a literalistic interpretation of Genesis. At least have the balls to admit you deny science rather than engaging in this charade of ignorance.

And still you continue with the insults.

Pointing out how science disagrees with literalistic Genesis is an insult huh? Really? Not simply stating the bloody obvious?

You know nothing about me or my education. You have a lot of nerve.

If you are uneducated in science to the point of not knowing how much modern science disagrees with your literalistic beliefs, then it is a reasonable conclusion that you are uneducated in that topic. This is a pretty straight forward piece of reasoning regardless of your intention of interpreting it as an insult.

 

[Enoch07]

You miss the point completely. Not gonna argue with someone blinded by their own ego.

 

[themadhair]

You miss the point completely. Not gonna argue with someone blinded by their own ego.

Translation: Stop pointing out my beliefs contradict science. I want to continue believing they are compatible.

 

[Enoch07]

Translation: Stop pointing out my beliefs contradict science. I want to continue believing they are compatible.

Point out all you want to. If you want to believe the fantasy that science is infallible go ahead.

 

[themadhair]

If you want to believe the fantasy that science is infallible go ahead.

Translation: O how fallible science is that it got my literalistic beliefs so wrong. Never mind all the wonderful technology that I benefit from provided by science, or that I know next to nothing about the subject I am denigrating. I will make such a farcical judgement because it will allow me to salvage my own ego to decree science defenders as having certainty – and be completely oblivious as to what ‘margins of error’ are, how science operates and why science has reached the conclusions regarding my literalistic beliefs that it has. This also is first piece of true honesty I’ve displayed in this thread, as opposed to all that apologetic crap where I pretend to accept science. By erecting this strawman of science I have avoiding having to confront the evidence gathered by science.

 

[Enoch07]

Translation: O how fallible science is that it got my literalistic beliefs so wrong. Never mind all the wonderful technology that I benefit from provided by science, or that I know next to nothing about the subject I am denigrating. I will make such a farcical judgement because it will allow me to salvage my own ego to decree science defenders as having certainty – and be completely oblivious as to what ‘margins of error’ are, how science operates and why science has reached the conclusions regarding my literalistic beliefs that it has. This also is first piece of true honesty I’ve displayed in this thread, as opposed to all that apologetic crap where I pretend to accept science. By erecting this strawman of science I have avoiding having to confront the evidence gathered by science.

:biglaugh:

 

[themadhair]

A word from Ken Miller (Roman Catholic & biologist textbook author):
YouTube - Evolution FALSIFIED! (...or not), with Ken Miller

Key point:

I’m a Roman Catholic. I’m a theist in the broadest possible sense and I believe in a designer. But you know what, I don’t believe in a deceptive one. I don’t believe he would do this [fabricate evidence] to try and fool us. So I think this is authentic and tells us about our ancestry.

The video is a great explanation of some of the genetic evidence confirming common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees.

 

[Enoch07]

A word from Ken Miller (Roman Catholic & biologist textbook author):
YouTube - Evolution FALSIFIED! (...or not), with Ken Miller
Key point:
The video is a great explanation of some of the genetic evidence confirming common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees.

I don't deny we are cousins of some sort. I don't deny evolution entirely either. I just don't believe my great great great great etc grandma was a monkey. Like I said I believe in a mix of creationism/evolution. I just require harder evidence then most people are willing to accept. Surely you can appreciate my skepticism?

 

[themadhair]

I don't deny evolution entirely either.

Holding a literalistic interpretation of Genesis means you do, being uninformed to the point of not realising this notwithstanding.

Like I said I believe in a mix of creationism/evolution.

You really don’t. This is pointless apologetics and, unfortunately, is the same mistaken idea people supporting the anti-science movement are often making.

I just require harder evidence then most people are willing to accept.

This isn’t the same as ignoring evidence, which is what is required to hold to literalistic Genesis. What part of the following skull evidence do you have a problem with for example?:

Surely you can appreciate my skepticism?

Holding Genesis to be literal isn’t being skeptical – it is being denialistic. This sort of crap might sate you own consciousness but it falls short of being a reasonable account of the denial of reality required to hold a literal account of Genesis.

Have a look at this post where I listed some of the areas of science and history that contradict Genesis. To call your wilful ignorance of this ‘skepticism’ is spin of the highest order.

 

[Enoch07]

Holding a literalistic interpretation of Genesis means you do, being uninformed to the point of not realising this notwithstanding.

Well I won't bother trying to explain my theory then. Because you will only believe what you want to believe.

You really don’t. This is pointless apologetics and, unfortunately, is the same mistaken idea people supporting the anti-science movement are often making.

Not being apologetic. Just trying to be civil.

Holding Genesis to be literal isn’t being skeptical – it is being denialistic. This sort of crap might sate you own consciousness but it falls short of being a reasonable account of the denial of reality required to hold a literal account of Genesis.

What is unreasonable is you have to have it your way or no way. That is called bigotry.

 

[Storm]

Enoch, they're not saying you have to believe x. They're saying you can't believe x and not-x at the same time. I don't know how much, if any science you reject, but you can't accept and reject it at the same time. That's just the way it is, and bigotry has nothing to do with it.

 

[themadhair]

Enoch, they're not saying you have to believe x. They're saying you can't believe x and not-x at the same time. I don't know how much, if any science you reject, but you can't accept and reject it at the same time. That's just the way it is, and bigotry has nothing to do with it.

What she said ^

You have to reject science to hold a literal interpretation of Genesis. It is as simple as that. I'm not sure you want to reject science since you seem to think you agree/accept it on some level judging by your posts. The problem is that you simply do not enough science to understand why holding literal Genesis requires you to reject science.

 

[Enoch07]

Enoch, they're not saying you have to believe x. They're saying you can't believe x and not-x at the same time. I don't know how much, if any science you reject, but you can't accept and reject it at the same time. That's just the way it is, and bigotry has nothing to do with it.

You misunderstand what I am saying then. I am allowed to have my own theories. Or is free thought not allowed here?

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset. From wikipedia

Yes it is bigotry. Themadhair is intolerant of creationism in the slightest bit.

 

[Storm]

You misunderstand what I am saying then. A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset. From wikipedia

Yes it is bigotry. Themadhair is intolerant of creationism in the slightest bit.

I know full well what bigotry is, and I'm the first to call it when I see it. I don't see it here. I see insistence upon consistency.

 

[Enoch07]

I know full well what bigotry is, and I'm the first to call it when I see it. I don't see it here. I see insistence upon consistency.

Are you infallible as well?

 

[Storm]

Are you infallible as well?

Can't think of a rebuttal, huh?

 

[Enoch07]

Can't think of a rebuttal, huh?

That was my rebuttal. I am saying you are mistaken.