Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
the origins of the bible
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="rainycity" data-source="post: 53576806" data-attributes="member: 246231"><p>Francis S. Collins, leader of the human genome project, christian, and accepts evolution. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p>....no that's not what I said at all. If creationists with scientific training and credentials presented evidence for creationism it would be taken seriously. Do you have to substitute deeply held religious belief to present or acknowledge evidence for your beliefs? do you ignore historical evidence for jesus and biblical events because its against your religion? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In order to believe in christianity, you need to actually believe that jesus existed. If you refuse to acknowledge historical evidence altogether, why believe in christianity over any other religion? </p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>No, actually, thats not what I said. Any christian can be a legitimate scientist without having to prove what they believe. There are plenty of legitimate scientists who are christians. </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>It depends on what your definition of ''True Christianity&#8482;" is. I think it's pretty clear most christians don't share your definition. </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>I'm here to learn more about the bible and christianity. Then you started saying some stuff about science in this thread which isn't true, and now we're arguing about it, we're the only two people posting in this thread now. So this thread kind of went off topic, but I'm ok with that. But you have a skewed idea of what science is, once again science is not a group of people, a person, or an institution, or a faith. It's a discipline and practice and a body of knowledge acquired through that discipline and practice. For scientists, there is no demand for devotion, it's just irrelevant to what they do. There's also no demand for common peoples' devotion. It doesn't matter if I have faith in particular scientific theories, or if anybody does. I am not a scientist. </p><p></p><p>But it doesn't even matter if scientists have faith in particular theories, or a particular religion, <em>as long as it doesn't interfere with their work. </em>Because faith has nothing to do with their work. You could go around surveying people and find out that a lot of people have faith that an unproven scientific theory is true. But that wouldn't matter because science is not a faith. What matters is the work that scientists do. </p><p></p><p>You've contradicted yourself by claiming that science is a faith, and also claiming that scientific theories are always changing and being updated. If science really were a faith, then it's theories wouldn't change. But science is the <u>search </u>for the truth, and as such is capable of admitting when it is wrong (justifiable as it never claimed to be true beyond all doubt) and then looking for a more effective theory. Is it really faith when you acknowledge that something has a chance to be wrong? Scientists use theories and acknowledge their weaknesses as they go along, I don't call that faith, really, because the level of confidence is proportional to the evidence. </p><p></p><p>Here's a diagram which will help you understand how science works as opposed to faith: </p><p></p><p> <a href="http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/3066/sciencevsfaithbig.png" target="_blank">http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/3066/sciencevsfaithbig.png</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>yeh, I think I have a fairly good idea of what you believe but there are some things which I'm confused about. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>We're not talking about doctrine. You're making a bunch of statements about science which aren't true. </p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Do you mean "you are arguing against"? in that case I don't think most christians share your sentiments at all, I think you're on the fringe.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ok, you do not know what a fact is. A "Fact" is an unconditional truth, a fact is something that <em>cannot</em> be disproven because it's already been proven as truth!</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>hold on, I am <em>not </em>a representative of science, and do you think science acknowledges the existence of souls? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I can't prove what I believe, but I'm not talking about my beliefs, I'm talking about facts. </p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>1. I didn't say "theory of gravity" I said "gravity". I'm referring to the fact of gravity and to the fact of evolution: both things we've observed and that are highly unlikely that will ever change. Things have gravitational attraction. Things evolve. </p><p></p><p>2. There is no faith involved here. You can keep repeating yourself and it's not going to change the fact that we are not believing in things without evidence - but in things substantiated with evidence, experimentation, and reason, which is not faith. They are two very different things.</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>What does that have to do with anything I said? At all? <strong><u><em>If we make our approximation even more precise than what it is now, that does not require evolution to change at all.</em></u></strong> That's the important bit. </p><p>If you're trying to make the point that some scientists postulate different theories to others - so what if they do? </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>That you even begin to compare the "evidence to prove the world was flat" to the evidence that evolution is true is utterly laughable. There is no comparison. It's like comparing a molehill to a mountain. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not everything is presented as a fact, just the fundamentals which we have staggering amounts of evidence for - just like for the existence of gravity. We've observed things evolve with our very eyes, we've observed natural selection with our very eyes, we've observed genetic change with our very eyes. These are facts. No new theory is going to make that not true.</p><p> </p><p> "<em>In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.</em>"</p><p> </p><p> --Stephen Jay Gould</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Why? Because it doesn't paint <em>any </em>rational view. You are making making it seem as if scientists were postulating that it might have occurred before it's even possible. You've taken a analogy that's supposed to relate to reality, and made it so that it doesn't at all! You haven't made it "more true" you made it absurd! No scientist claims the age of the Earth is older than the age of the Milky Way, or the age of the universe. So how is changing the analogy to say historians believe it pearl harbor occurred before the civil war make any sense? It doesn't.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, scientists do not use faith in their work. Science has facts, and theories with evidence, Christians have belief without evidence. Not the same. You can keep repeating yourself but this is not going to change.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Science is about giving us the best answer with the resources/evidence available at the time. It is already explained to students in the classroom that anything in the Science class - laws, theories, hypotheses, facts - could potentially change. That's a good thing., Self-correction, is a good thing. Correcting yourself when you see new evidence that contradicts your original positions isn't bad, it's good!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="rainycity, post: 53576806, member: 246231"] Francis S. Collins, leader of the human genome project, christian, and accepts evolution. ....no that's not what I said at all. If creationists with scientific training and credentials presented evidence for creationism it would be taken seriously. Do you have to substitute deeply held religious belief to present or acknowledge evidence for your beliefs? do you ignore historical evidence for jesus and biblical events because its against your religion? In order to believe in christianity, you need to actually believe that jesus existed. If you refuse to acknowledge historical evidence altogether, why believe in christianity over any other religion? No, actually, thats not what I said. Any christian can be a legitimate scientist without having to prove what they believe. There are plenty of legitimate scientists who are christians. It depends on what your definition of ''True Christianity™" is. I think it's pretty clear most christians don't share your definition. I'm here to learn more about the bible and christianity. Then you started saying some stuff about science in this thread which isn't true, and now we're arguing about it, we're the only two people posting in this thread now. So this thread kind of went off topic, but I'm ok with that. But you have a skewed idea of what science is, once again science is not a group of people, a person, or an institution, or a faith. It's a discipline and practice and a body of knowledge acquired through that discipline and practice. For scientists, there is no demand for devotion, it's just irrelevant to what they do. There's also no demand for common peoples' devotion. It doesn't matter if I have faith in particular scientific theories, or if anybody does. I am not a scientist. But it doesn't even matter if scientists have faith in particular theories, or a particular religion, [I]as long as it doesn't interfere with their work. [/I]Because faith has nothing to do with their work. You could go around surveying people and find out that a lot of people have faith that an unproven scientific theory is true. But that wouldn't matter because science is not a faith. What matters is the work that scientists do. You've contradicted yourself by claiming that science is a faith, and also claiming that scientific theories are always changing and being updated. If science really were a faith, then it's theories wouldn't change. But science is the [U]search [/U]for the truth, and as such is capable of admitting when it is wrong (justifiable as it never claimed to be true beyond all doubt) and then looking for a more effective theory. Is it really faith when you acknowledge that something has a chance to be wrong? Scientists use theories and acknowledge their weaknesses as they go along, I don't call that faith, really, because the level of confidence is proportional to the evidence. Here's a diagram which will help you understand how science works as opposed to faith: [URL]http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/3066/sciencevsfaithbig.png[/URL] yeh, I think I have a fairly good idea of what you believe but there are some things which I'm confused about. We're not talking about doctrine. You're making a bunch of statements about science which aren't true. Do you mean "you are arguing against"? in that case I don't think most christians share your sentiments at all, I think you're on the fringe. Ok, you do not know what a fact is. A "Fact" is an unconditional truth, a fact is something that [I]cannot[/I] be disproven because it's already been proven as truth! hold on, I am [I]not [/I]a representative of science, and do you think science acknowledges the existence of souls? I can't prove what I believe, but I'm not talking about my beliefs, I'm talking about facts. 1. I didn't say "theory of gravity" I said "gravity". I'm referring to the fact of gravity and to the fact of evolution: both things we've observed and that are highly unlikely that will ever change. Things have gravitational attraction. Things evolve. 2. There is no faith involved here. You can keep repeating yourself and it's not going to change the fact that we are not believing in things without evidence - but in things substantiated with evidence, experimentation, and reason, which is not faith. They are two very different things. What does that have to do with anything I said? At all? [B][U][I]If we make our approximation even more precise than what it is now, that does not require evolution to change at all.[/I][/U][/B] That's the important bit. If you're trying to make the point that some scientists postulate different theories to others - so what if they do? That you even begin to compare the "evidence to prove the world was flat" to the evidence that evolution is true is utterly laughable. There is no comparison. It's like comparing a molehill to a mountain. Not everything is presented as a fact, just the fundamentals which we have staggering amounts of evidence for - just like for the existence of gravity. We've observed things evolve with our very eyes, we've observed natural selection with our very eyes, we've observed genetic change with our very eyes. These are facts. No new theory is going to make that not true. "[I]In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.[/I]" --Stephen Jay Gould Why? Because it doesn't paint [I]any [/I]rational view. You are making making it seem as if scientists were postulating that it might have occurred before it's even possible. You've taken a analogy that's supposed to relate to reality, and made it so that it doesn't at all! You haven't made it "more true" you made it absurd! No scientist claims the age of the Earth is older than the age of the Milky Way, or the age of the universe. So how is changing the analogy to say historians believe it pearl harbor occurred before the civil war make any sense? It doesn't. Again, scientists do not use faith in their work. Science has facts, and theories with evidence, Christians have belief without evidence. Not the same. You can keep repeating yourself but this is not going to change. Science is about giving us the best answer with the resources/evidence available at the time. It is already explained to students in the classroom that anything in the Science class - laws, theories, hypotheses, facts - could potentially change. That's a good thing., Self-correction, is a good thing. Correcting yourself when you see new evidence that contradicts your original positions isn't bad, it's good! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
the origins of the bible
Top
Bottom