The Battle Between The Christian Religion and Science

[McBell]

I post the basic definition of evolution, and you, a hard-core evolutionist don't recognize it.

No, you presented a strawman and got called out on it.
That you findit amusing reveals much about you.

I don't have it backwards. my claim all along is that God did it.

"GodDidIt" is nothing more than a cop out.

If He didn't, tell me how it all happened, scientifically of course.

I have made no claim how life began.
You made the claim that God did it.
It is on you to tell us how he did it.
If you can use science to explain it, all the better.

 

[McBell]

I have looked at them for 20 years and have not found one piece of scientific evidence in any of them.

So which is it, you do not know what science is or you ignore the science?

Evidently you consider any thing they say as evidence.

Theists are the ones who set that bar.

Actually it is the ToE that is anti-science and me insisting that God did it all, strengthens my religious position, because that is the only logical explanation. Unless you can offer a different explanation. Be sure to make it a scientific one. Thanks

I do not understand why you insist on a science explanation when your "GodDidIt" claim is not science.
You do understand that is a double standard, right?

 

[Reggie Miller]

Battle? Religion? Saywha?

 

[omega2xx]

The limited perspective of somebody who's got three score years and ten -- and if something doesn't happen within that time-frame, it’s clearly impossible. That you cannot observe 200,000 generations of anything through environmental and competitive change simply shows you to have a most limited imagination.

AT least 2 things you do not understand. First, time will not change the laws of genetics. Second, If evolution is a continuing in our lifetime.process, as they claim, there would be visible examples that we could see

Please have a look at what a man who is both a man of faith and a man of science has to say on this topic.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/defense-evolution.html

I broke my rule land checked it and it verifies why I no longer check links on evolution. Isaw no evidenced he was a man of faith, although he is Catholic, and the pope accept evolution. However all he did was reject ID, but as usual, offered no evidence to support evolution.

As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so he denial of God is the height of foolishness. R.C. Sproul

 

[omega2xx]

So which is it, you do not know what science is or you ignore the science?

I know about science, evidently more than you do. I accept science and reject evolution which not even pseudo science.

Theists are the ones who set that bar.

Then post one thing, just one that has been proved in what the TOE preaches

I do not understand why you insist on a science explanation when your "GodDidIt" claim is not science.
You do understand that is a double standard, right?

Another example of you not understanding simple words. First I have NEVER said "God did it" is science. Second I do not understand why you don't think a science explnation is necessary. That is absurd. If science can't prove what someone says, it remain an OPINION.

Real science is not about opinions, That is the arena of evolution.

Now I hope you understand what a real double standard is. I used the simplest language I could.


As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so he denial of God is the height of foolishness. R.C. Sproul

 

[omega2xx]

It continue to amuse me that some evos think a species remaining the same species is evidence of evolution and that a change in eye color is evidence of evolution.

As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so he denial of God is the height of foolishness. R.C. Sproul

 

[omega2xx]

There's so much evidence there, and I've showed you where you can start doing some serious research since it's obvious you really haven't checked it out thoroughly. Therefore, there's simply no where for me to go on this with you. One simply cannot see the sun unless they open their eyes first. All you have to do is to google "evolution", and at your disposal will be myriads of links to quite reputable scientific sites.

So, instead of accepting the known evidence, you believe in a "God of the Bible" of which there virtually is not one iota of objectively-derived evidence for. So, you reject that which has overwhelming scientific evidence for but blindly swallow that which there's no scientific or objective evidence for.

BTW, to be clear, I am not saying nor implying that there cannot be a god or gods. I'm not the one jumping to conclusions. All religions have a value in and of themselves, which is a topic for another day.

YAWN. If I reject evolution it is because I am ignorant, I don't understand science, I have not checked it out or all 3. There is evidence for God, unless you can explain, scientifically of course, how matter created itself out of nothing and how life originated from lifeless elements.

As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so he denial of God is the height of foolishness. R.C. Sproul

 

[omega2xx]

What do you consider evidence?
Just tell me what you want, and I'll produce it.

Repeat it and observe it. If you say mutations are a mechanism for a change of species, do it and observe it.

So far, you've asked for explanations, and you've asked examples, and you've asked for "proof" and you've asked for just personal discussions... You've been given those things by myself and many others in this thread and you're rejecting anything and everything that you don't like as either being too long to read, or as somehow not meeting your standards of evidence.

You do not understand scientific evidence and you are willing to accept any statement you think reinforces your belief system.

So just tell me specifically what you want to see and I'll find it for you.

This is about what I expected.
You're really exposing your ignorance, man...

OK, since you know so much about science, answer this---how can an offspring get a characteristic that is not in the gene pool of its parents.

If this is going to be how you respond to my above request for a specific type of evidence, then you've shown why you can't be reasoned with. This is not at all how biology works and shows a complete lack of understanding on your part. No one in the scientific community would ever postulate such a thing. It's completely ridiculous.

If you can't answer the question I just ask, with a scientific explanation, it is you who does not understand science. If I can't be reasoned with, then ignore me.

If you limit your scope of understanding of reality to what can observed in a single lifetime, then you have to admit that there's no real "proof" that the Revolutionary war ever happened...

If you think time changes the laws of genetics, you will never understand what science teaches. Written records tell us about the Revolutionary war. Now you get to determine if they are telling the truth or not. Real science doesn't work that way. Some history can be embellished or slanted to fit an personal agenda. Science can't be embellished or slanted to fit an agenda. If it does , it is no longer science.

As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so he denial of God is the height of foolishness. R.C. Sproul

 

[omega2xx]

No, you presented a strawman and got called out on it.
That you findit amusing reveals much about you.

I hope so. I hope it reveals that I am not as gullible as the evo in this forum.

"GodDidIt" is nothing more than a cop out.


I have made no claim how life began.

I 'haven't said you did. Try to keep up.

You made the claim that God did it.

Wrong again. I said God did it is a more logical explanation that one you have if you are not too embarrassed to offer it. Pleading ignorance is an acceptable reply.

It is on you to tell us how he did it.

God said let the be light and their was light.

If you can use science to explain it, all the better.

I have never said I can explain it by science. I accept it by faith alone just as you accept by faith alone, what the evangelist of evolution preach too you.

As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so he denial of God is the height of foolishness. R.C. Sproul

 

[metis]

There is evidence for God, unless you can explain, scientifically of course, how matter created itself out of nothing and how life originated from lifeless elements.

I do not know how life may have started as there is more than one possibility, so I'm not willing to bet my house on any one of them. And yet you assume to know, which is not how science works.

There simply is no objectively-derived evidence for a god or gods, which is not to say that they can't exist, and even if there was evidence for there being a god or gods, that still does not verify much of anything that's found in the Bible.

OTOH, the objectively-derived evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that it's no longer even a question about the basic process. The details, yes there are still plenty of questions left.

 

[metis]

If you think time changes the laws of genetics, you will never understand what science teaches.

Except the fact is that geneticists well know about the evolutionary process, and we as anthropologists ship out some of our findings to geneticists for evaluation since genetic change is their area of expertise. I have yet to meet a geneticist that doubts the basic ToE.

 

[Reggie Miller]

As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness. R.C. Sproul

Amen to this. I have listened to RC Sproul myself and I agree with 99% of everything he says. I think his Biblical understanding is very, very good.

Have you heard his series when he goes through the entire Bible? It's great.

 

[omega2xx]

I do not know how life may have started as there is more than one possibility, so I'm not willing to bet my house on any one of them. And yet you assume to know, which is not how science works.

My assumption is based on science. Science says nothing can't be the origin of something and lifeless elements cannot produce life.

There simply is no objectively-derived evidence for a god or gods, which is not to say that they can't exist, and even if there was evidence for there being a god or gods, that still does not verify much of anything that's found in the Bible.

There is more evidence that God exist, than that He does not.

OTOH, the objectively-derived evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that it's no longer even a question about the basic process. The details, yes there are still plenty of questions left.

Wonderful. That should make it easy for you to post one example of something in the Toe that science has been proved and how they proved it.

 

[omega2xx]

Except the fact is that geneticists well know about the evolutionary process, and we as anthropologists ship out some of our findings to geneticists for evaluation since genetic change is their area of expertise. I have yet to meet a geneticist that doubts the basic ToE.

Wonderful, Then you can explain, genetically of course, how a life form with no bones, no need for bones and no gene for bones can have a kid with bones.

As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so he denial of God is the height of foolishness. R.C. Sproul

 

[omega2xx]

Amen to this. I have listened to RC Sproul myself and I agree with 99% of everything he says. I think his Biblical understanding is very, very good.

Have you heard his series when he goes through the entire Bible? It's great.

IMO R.C. Sprole is America's best theologian, but I have not read much of his works. My church has free copies of his Table Talk for anyone who wants a copy.
Like you, I agree with only 99% of what he says, and I may be wrong about the 1%

 

[metis]

Wonderful. That should make it easy for you to post one example of something in the Toe that science has been proved and how they proved it.

You've been told over and over again how to access this information and have been shown some of it, but you virtually ignore both the advice and the links that some of us have provided you. Instead, you buy into without question a rather nonsensical interpretation of the creation accounts in light of what we now know and that which most Christian theologians reject, according to surveys.

I was brought up in a fundamentalist Protestant church and taught to reject the ToE, but when I began to visit museums and looked at some of the evidence, I realized there was a problem. I had tentative plans to go into the ministry, which I shelved until I could sort things out.

In college, I began in biology, and along with my other studies, including taking theology classes, I began realize I had been sold a terrible "bill of goods" in my church, but I still didn't break away from it until a few years later. By coincidence, I took my first anthropology class early in my junior year, fell in love with the subject, and finished off my undergrad and then my grad work in that field.

If your church/denomination is teaching you that the ToE isn't compatible with the creation accounts, they are lying to you, and if they are lying to you about that, what else are they lying to you about?

 

[metis]

Wonderful, Then you can explain, genetically of course, how a life form with no bones, no need for bones and no gene for bones can have a kid with bones.

As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so he denial of God is the height of foolishness. R.C. Sproul

Not only do organisms evolve, so do organs, and we have seen examples of that in various organisms whereas a specific organ may no longer be useful or may take on a somewhat different function.

Of course you could google that as well, but going by your previous performance, you'll not likely do that.

BTW, bones are composed of tissue, so it's not that terribly difficult to speculate how softer tissue could possibly have evolved into harder tissue. And the fossil record indicates this likely happened as earlier forms of life do not contain bones, and exoskeletons developed later in time, and bones developed even later yet. This is pretty much a pattern that scientifically and logically cannot really be explained in any other way.

 

[Reggie Miller]

IMO R.C. Sprole is America's best theologian, but I have not read much of his works. My church has free copies of his Table Talk for anyone who wants a copy.
Like you, I agree with only 99% of what he says, and I may be wrong about the 1%

Good answer, thank you.

I recommend you get his tapes where he goes through the entire Bible and provides commentary and meaning to all of it. I believe it is produced by Ligonier Ministries. You'll be glad you listened to it or read it, whichever you prefer.

 

[McBell]

Then post one thing, just one that has been proved in what the TOE preaches

Already been done.
You ignored it.
No reason to post more for you to simply ignore.

Another example of you not understanding simple words. First I have NEVER said "God did it" is science. Second I do not understand why you don't think a science explnation is necessary. That is absurd. If science can't prove what someone says, it remain an OPINION.

Real science is not about opinions, That is the arena of evolution.

Now I hope you understand what a real double standard is. I used the simplest language I could.


As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so he denial of God is the height of foolishness. R.C. Sproul

Ah, so you have science to explain how "GodDidIt", right?
Where is it?
If you do not have science that explains how "GodDidIt", demanding science in an explanation is a double standard.

So present the science showing how "GodDidIt".

Or...

Are you claiming that "GodDidIt" is only your opinion thus no need for science?
If that is the case, you are still a hypocrite for demanding science.

Evolution does not deal with the beginning of life.
That would be abiogenesis.

OASN:
You really need to brush up on your insults.

 

[Sonofason]

No, hearing a good argument won't be enough. You have to LISTEN to it, too. With your mind.

I can't really listen to it until I hear it.