The Battle Between The Christian Religion and Science

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

And you can't hear it until you listen. You've been pointed, and have declined. Thus, you won't listen and thus will never hear. Know what? I don't care, except that the more of your type there are, the more danger the world is in of never finding a solution to its problems.

But maybe we could ask God to fix it. Near as I can tell, humans have been doing that since humans have been recording their thoughts -- and so far he has not seemed very much inclined to oblige. Still, I suppose, you never know, eh?

 

[Deeje]

Rubbish! If the "why" is merely a human guess, it cannot be an explanation.

Are you serious? The whole evolutionary theory is a human guess. There is no way that science can "prove" that organic evolution ever took place. It can prove adaptation, but it cannot prove that a chain of evolutionary changes link one fossil to another, millions of years apart....that is pure guesswork.

 

[Deeje]

And you can't hear it until you listen. You've been pointed, and have declined. Thus, you won't listen and thus will never hear. Know what? I don't care, except that the more of your type there are, the more danger the world is in of never finding a solution to its problems.

Hmmm....evolutionists get pointed to facts about ID all the time...and you know what? They won't listen! They just

.....and, you know what else? God doesn't care what they think.

Please show us how "our type" have made the world a worse place? And then maybe I can give you a list of all the things that science has done to bring all life on this planet to the brink of extinction.....men of science are the cause of all man's present problems. How does man solve the problems when man IS the problem?

Your comment shows the level of superiority that exists among those who proffer a fantasy whist pointing fingers at others for doing supposedly the same thing.

But maybe we could ask God to fix it. Near as I can tell, humans have been doing that since humans have been recording their thoughts -- and so far he has not seemed very much inclined to oblige. Still, I suppose, you never know, eh?

Yes indeed...it doesn't pay to say that God "can't" exist, because like evolution, there is an indication there that is very clear "evidence" for his existence, depending on what glasses you're wearing.

 

[Deeje]

Really? Then you know very little about one or the other -- or more probably both!

I think it would be a really good idea if you followed your own advice.

A bat is not a bird --okay? The Bible says it is, science says it's not. Score 1 for science.

The Bible does not say that a bat is a bird. It lists bats among birds that may not be eaten by the Israelites.

“You may eat any clean bird. 12 But you must not eat these: the eagle, the osprey, the black vulture, 13 the red kite, the black kite, every kind of glede, 14 every kind of raven, 15 the ostrich, the owl, the gull, every kind of falcon, 16 the little owl, the long-eared owl, the swan, 17 the pelican, the vulture, the cormorant, 18 the stork, every kind of heron, the hoopoe, and the bat. 19 Every winged swarming creature also is unclean for you. They should not be eaten. 20 Any clean flying creature you may eat.'"

The "winged flying creatures" included certain insects which the Israelites certainly knew were not birds. Their own eyes would tell them that bats are not birds either. I don't think they were that stupid.
Score 1 for the Bible.

The sun could not have stood still for a day, the only way for that to happen (now that we know how the solar system works) is to stop the planet Earth's rotation in its tracks -- an event that would have caused catastrophic damage to everything. (Think about a fast car hitting a wall. What happens? The planet rotates at the equator over 1000 MPH. Stop that all at once and Joshua's guts would have been torn out of his body in an instant.

You are seeing this event through purely human eyes and estimations. Do you think that a being with the power to create the universe has no capacity to override the laws of his own creation if it suits him? Do you think he would be ignorant of what inertia can do to material beings? He isn't human, and is therefore not bound by the laws that apply to us. Why do atheists want to place limits on a being who doesn't have any?....yet place no limits on what evolution can accomplish?

Let us be clear -- you are concerned with the Bible, and have extremely limited knowledge of science. You cannot make comparisons between one thing and another if you don't actually know anything at all about one of them.

Neither can you. Let's be clear about that as well.

 

[omega2xx]

Are you serious? The whole evolutionary theory is a human guess. There is no way that science can "prove" that organic evolution ever took place. It can prove adaptation, but it cannot prove that a chain of evolutionary changes link one fossil to another, millions of years apart....that is pure guesswork.

Well said. Adaption might keep the species from becoming extinct, but is will never result in a change of species.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well said. Adaption might keep the species from becoming extinct, but is will never result in a change of species.

How is this known to be an absolute barrier?

 

[omega2xx]

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.

I have been told over and over is that I have been told over and over. All they do is talk and have yet to present one bit of scientific evidence. I have been give 100's of sies and not one has ever said "how' it happened. They ALWAYS just say it did.

I am going to make it easy for you. How can the offspring acquire a characteristic for which neither parent has the gene for. Please don't post a link. If you want to quote the link but I have quit reading inks. They are rhetoric.

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.

Don't bring religion into a discussion of science.

There is no evidence in museums. All of the skeletons are separate and distinct species.If the museum says they are intermediates, they are lying.

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.

I am glad you found a work you enjoyed, but nothing in anthropplogy reinforces anything in the ToE. They are the ones who have sold you a terrible bill of goods.

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?

In 40+ years I have never heard a sermon about evolution. Thatt is not the purpose of a church.

If you professors told you "after it kind" is not true, they were lying to you. That alone refuted evolution. It can be repeated and observed. That makes it true, and it can't be falsified.

 

[omega2xx]

How is this known to be an absolute barrier?

Genetics

 

[Revoltingest]

Genetics

Ya gotta give me more than one word.
I won't complain about a wall of text (so long as it's interesting).

 

[metis]

I have been told over and over is that I have been told over and over. All they do is talk and have yet to present one bit of scientific evidence. I have been give 100's of sies and not one has ever said "how' it happened. They ALWAYS just say it did.

But actually many of them do cover the genetics, so you might check out copies of Scientific American, for example, or check their site on-line. Even Wikipedia has links you can access.

I am going to make it easy for you. How can the offspring acquire a characteristic for which neither parent has the gene for.

Ever hear of the word called "mutation"? All material objects change over time, as least as far as we can tell, and this includes genes. Too much of a change all at one time probably will not lead to fertilization, but smaller changes can, and we know they sometimes do.

For example, ever see a person with two eyes that are of a different color? Probably a mutation. And we also know that some mutations are so severe that they may lead to a miscarriage or severe birth defect. Do you think God made them that way?

If the museum says they are intermediates, they are lying.

You are terribly misinformed as we all are "intermediates" unless our species dies out tomorrow. Evolution never stops by all indications, and common sense alone should even tell you that.

I am glad you found a work you enjoyed, but nothing in anthropplogy reinforces anything in the ToE. They are the ones who have sold you a terrible bill of goods.

Keep telling yourself that. Again, you simply are not even using any common sense whatsoever. According to you, all these scientists must be involved in a monstrous international science conspiracy just to fool people like me. Right. And why would all these scientists do such a thing? And why would you believe that almost all of them are so absolutely dishonest and corrupt.

I've seen some crazy conspiracy theories over my lifetime, but you've just taken 1st place with yours.

If you professors told you "after it kind" is not true, they were lying to you. That alone refuted evolution. It can be repeated and observed. That makes it true, and it can't be falsified.

It's "after its kind" but with incremental changes that add up over many generations, and we know this happens because geneticists have actually seen it! Google "speciation", although you're not likely to do that since you really don't want to know because it actually might show that you're wrong-- and it does. And if you realize that you're wrong on this, then this could necessitate a paradigm shift, and you don't want that because you then would have to think about what else might have to change. Been there, done that.

Accepting the truth is often rather scary since we can never tell what changes it may lead to, but the alternative is to just stick our heads into the sand, put our fingers into our ears while loudly saying "la la la...", and stop growing. Your choice.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Are you serious? The whole evolutionary theory is a human guess. There is no way that science can "prove" that organic evolution ever took place. It can prove adaptation, but it cannot prove that a chain of evolutionary changes link one fossil to another, millions of years apart....that is pure guesswork.

Let me ask you a simple question about this "guesswork:" Why is it, do you suppose, that the people putting in years of study, mountains and mountains of actual fossil evidence, carefully collected and studied, millions of words written in scientific papers all the other hard work have managed to universally get it so very wrong, while those who do no actual study at all of the world, but instead read their ancient holy books, manage to get it so very right?

And the courts! Every time this topic comes before the courts, and evidence is presented, evolution wins and design loses -- every single time the evidence is ACTUALLY WEIGHED in a fair and impartial manner. Evolution wins. Design loses. But yet, you say all those courts (think Dover PA) are wrong, you are right.

Is education so very useless? Should we just tear down all the schools and save trillions? Are e courts usually so useless at sifting actual evidence? Should we give up the legal system, too? Great idea! Smart thinking. Can't congratulate your deep wisdom enough!

 

[omega2xx]

Ya gotta give me more than one word.
I won't complain about a wall of text (so long as it's interesting).

the idea goes something like this, If the weather get much colder the wolf will adapt by getting a heavier coat. This in itself is absurd. Even if it is true, the wold will still be a wolf, no evolution. The second error of the fuzzy thinking is that the adaption would not happen over night, the wolf would not get the fur it needed to survive and it would go the way of the dinos. The third fallacy is that if the parents of the wolf did not have a gene for a heavier fur, and that is the only way the wolf could never get it.

Genetics do not change because of need. With genes, what you see is what you get.

 

[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.

I assume to know based on logic, not science. You have yet to explain something science says is not b---something from nothing and life from lifeless elements.

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.

Matter, energy and life that we have is evidence of not only a Creator, of and Intelligent Designer, unless you have a better explanaion, and you say you don' tknow.

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.

Then present the evidence. If it is overwhelming, that should be easy for you.

 

[McBell]

the idea goes something like this, If the weather get much colder the wolf will adapt by getting a heavier coat. This in itself is absurd. Even if it is true, the wold will still be a wolf, no evolution. The second error of the fuzzy thinking is that the adaption would not happen over night, the wolf would not get the fur it needed to survive and it would go the way of the dinos. The third fallacy is that if the parents of the wolf did not have a gene for a heavier fur, and that is the only way the wolf could never get it.

Genetics do not change because of need. With genes, what you see is what you get.

Thank you for demonstrating you know less than my 10 year old about what evolution states.

 

[Revoltingest]

the idea goes something like this, If the weather get much colder the wolf will adapt by getting a heavier coat. This in itself is absurd. Even if it is true, the wold will still be a wolf, no evolution. The second error of the fuzzy thinking is that the adaption would not happen over night, the wolf would not get the fur it needed to survive and it would go the way of the dinos. The third fallacy is that if the parents of the wolf did not have a gene for a heavier fur, and that is the only way the wolf could never get it.

Genetics do not change because of need. With genes, what you see is what you get.

I don't claim that genetics changes because of need.
And this post doesn't demonstrate why there is a barrier
between species, ie, one cannot evolve into another.

 

[Deeje]

Let me ask you a simple question about this "guesswork:" Why is it, do you suppose, that the people putting in years of study, mountains and mountains of actual fossil evidence, carefully collected and studied, millions of words written in scientific papers all the other hard work have managed to universally get it so very wrong, while those who do no actual study at all of the world, but instead read their ancient holy books, manage to get it so very right?

That is very simple...it's the source of the information. Scientists who want to promote their theory already have a mindset that it must be true, so everything they look for in their "evidence" has to support that pre-conceived idea. You can make anything look like the truth if you have a good method of marketing.

And the courts! Every time this topic comes before the courts, and evidence is presented, evolution wins and design loses -- every single time the evidence is ACTUALLY WEIGHED in a fair and impartial manner. Evolution wins. Design loses. But yet, you say all those courts (think Dover PA) are wrong, you are right.

You think that human courts can adjudicate between science and religious beliefs? Are you serious? The judges are trained in the human view of justice. We all know how the justice system works...it isn't about who tells the truth...its about who tells the better story or the more convincing one. Look at the powerful systems that are operating to make sure that universities get their grants. Peer pressure in the scientific community is almost as bad as it is in High Schools.
The power of suggestion is what makes the commercial world go round....and the world of science too apparently.

Is education so very useless? Should we just tear down all the schools and save trillions?

Education in what? If all the education is teaching unproven (and unprovable) theories as scientific truth, then what is all that teaching worth? If the teachers are misled, then all their students will be also. That holds true for any subject, including religion.

Are e courts usually so useless at sifting actual evidence? Should we give up the legal system, too? Great idea! Smart thinking. Can't congratulate your deep wisdom enough!

I have no idea where that strawman came from, but have fun demolishing him.

Any system that can prevent complete anarchy is desirable. How efficiently they operate is up for grabs.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That is very simple...it's the source of the information. Scientists who want to promote their theory already have a mindset that it must be true, so everything they look for in their "evidence" has to support that pre-conceived idea. You can make anything look like the truth if you have a good method of marketing.

I want to say, "wow, simply wow!" to your whole post, but since I would mean it not in a good way, what's the point?

You really think that's what's happening in the geological and life sciences, do you?

You think that human courts can adjudicate between science and religious beliefs? Are you serious? The judges are trained in the human view of justice. We all know how the justice system works...it isn't about who tells the truth...its about who tells the better story or the more convincing one. Look at the powerful systems that are operating to make sure that universities get their grants. Peer pressure in the scientific community is almost as bad as it is in High Schools.
The power of suggestion is what makes the commercial world go round....and the world of science too apparently.

No, I do not think that the courts adjudicate between science and religious beliefs -- and for the record I did not say anything whatever even vaguely resembling that. Please do not put words in my mouth. If you don't understand what I've said, ask me and I'll clarify, but don't make it up. That's for religion!

What I do think, however, is that courts can and do examine and adjudicate evidence -- all of the evidence that is produced, on both sides of the argument. And I think that they do so in as fair and unbiased a fashion as we fallible humans can manage, which means that of course it is not perfect.

I also point out to you that the judges and juries in all of those trials where ID has lost to evolution (which were not trials between science and religious belief, but trials between evidence for one side and evidence for the other), were almost entirely made up of Christians. Being representative of the population around them, the defenders and prosecutors were also pretty generally Christian.

Education in what? If all the education is teaching unproven (and unprovable) theories as scientific truth, then what is all that teaching worth? If the teachers are misled, then all their students will be also. That holds true for any subject, including religion.

I find it very unfortunate that you simply do not know what the word "proof" in science actually means. But since you don't, there's little else I can say -- with one tiny exception: for every "truth" proclaimed by both science and religion (since you insist it holds true for religion as well), science has not only vastly more "evidence," it has virtually ALL OF IT. Religion has pretty much none. Or if you think it does, provide me one piece of testable (not provable, testable) evidence for any entirely religious claim you'd care to make.

I have no idea where that strawman came from, but have fun demolishing him.

Not a strawman at all, as it would be a most reasonable assumption, given your own arguments about both education and courts that I've quoted in this post, that both education and courts and useless. What is useless ought really not to have trillions spent on it, now, should it?

Any system that can prevent complete anarchy is desirable. How efficiently they operate is up for grabs.

Actual knowledge has frequently demonstrated itself much better than contradictory belief systems, in my view. I've yet to see mathematicians burning each other at the stake for believing in the wrong theorem about right triangles.

 

[Deeje]

I find it very unfortunate that you simply do not know what the word "proof" in science actually means. But since you don't, there's little else I can say -- with one tiny exception: for every "truth" proclaimed by both science and religion (since you insist it holds true for religion as well), science has not only vastly more "evidence," it has virtually ALL OF IT. Religion has pretty much none. Or if you think it does, provide me one piece of testable (not provable, testable) evidence for any entirely religious claim you'd care to make.

It is unfortunate to me that science had to change the definition of a few words to be able to claim their theory as truth.
If you can't "prove" something, then it isn't a fact....and if something is a theory, it should not be given the status of a fact until is it proven. Evolution cannot be proven scientifically any more than ID.
It is supposition at best.....educated guesswork at least.

The truth of the matter is, we have two belief systems, with two conflicting scenarios and neither one can "prove" by actual evidence that they are right.
No one saw God create anything and no one saw a single creature evolve into something else.
Each view requires faith in the evidence which is interpreted very differently by both sides. We choose what makes sense to us.

The "evidence" presented by science to support the gradual evolution of one species into others, is largely based on what science "thinks might have" happened, but there is no way to prove any of it. One only has to read the literature to see that the terminology is highly suggestive and short on actual evidence. Without interpretation, no one would ever even guess what science postulates. One fossil found on one continent, and another fossil found in a far distant place....supposedly separated by millions of years, and all of a sudden, they are related in a chain of evolution? Obviously science fiction can masquerade as science fact if enough people swallow the suggestions made by the right people.

Not a strawman at all, as it would be a most reasonable assumption, given your own arguments about both education and courts that I've quoted in this post, that both education and courts and useless. What is useless ought really not to have trillions spent on it, now, should it?

Funny, but I don't recall saying anything like that, so who is putting words in whose mouth now?
My arguments support truth over fiction, but we all know that truth is often sacrificed when someone has an agenda and a good story to spin.
Education is fine provided that it isn't based on false teachings....
The courts have a measure of success in bringing criminals to justice, but they can hardly decide between science and religious beliefs.

Actual knowledge has frequently demonstrated itself much better than contradictory belief systems, in my view. I've yet to see mathematicians burning each other at the stake for believing in the wrong theorem about right triangles.

Now you are talking about counterfeit Christianity. The Catholic Church might have sanctioned something like that because it believes that God tortures wicked souls in hellfire, but that is not a Bible teaching and no Christian is sanctioned to take the life of anyone, for any reason.

The Bible and science are not at odds....its is the Bible and this theory that cannot agree.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

@Deeje, I'm kinda done with you. You have your needed belief, and part of that belief insists that there are things you cannot see.

William Herschell, great scientist, was once trying to tell his son about "dark stars" that you couldn't see. His son asked, "how can you know, father, that they exist if you cannot see them?" They were, as it happens, walking on a beach during this conversations.

"Well, john," replied Herschell, "can you see the man who left those footprints in the sand over there?" "Why, no father, I cannot," replied John. "Then do you not know that he exists?" asked his father.

This is what science does. When you have sufficient "footprints," and reasonable inference makes it clear what or who made them, then it is reasonable to accept that the footprints attest to the reality of the maker.

You have exactly one footprint to which you cling: "life exists." And from that, you infer a creator of it.

The variety of the life that exists, and the geologically attested variety of that life over time (life that once existed and no longer does, life that does exist that once didn't), are the footprints that evolutionists follow.

You are welcome to assume there's only the one. I will continue to see the millions.

 

[Reggie Miller]

The battle isn't between Christians and science. It is the same as it ways was.

The battle is between believers and unbelievers. Nothing has changed since the beginning in this respect.