-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
100% of Scientists do not believe Darwin
- Thread starter JohnR7
- Start date
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
Well, it took a little arm-twisting, but we finally got to the point of this thread: Science vs. Dogma.
Personally, I wouldn't put my life on the line for Darwin's book, or anyone else's. I'd be very concerned for the mental health of anyone who would.
Darwin's Origin of Species was not 100% accurate. Considering that DNA and genetics were unknown at the time, that would've been impossible. Even today, bits and pieces of what Darwin wrote have been tossed out due to contrary evidence, although the theory itself is still sound.
So what? Science is not an all-or-nothing proposition, religion is. Science makes no claims of infalliablity, religion does. You don't send your car to the junkyard just because it gets a flat tire, now do you?
Darwin had his skeptics in his time, as he does now. So did Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Issac Newton, Ben Franklin, Hippocrates, Pythagoras, Louis Pasteur, Marie Curie, Sigmund Freud, Christopher Columbus, Leonardo Da Vinci, Thomas Jefferson, and anyone else who has ever made a scientific discovery or contribution to the world.
Scientists are not worshipped as Gods. Many have justly earned the respect of their peers, but only after their life's work has been put under a microscope. The first reaction to a bold new scientific theory is to try and prove it wrong. That process never stops.
But the process only means something if it's done according to the scientific method. You may believe that Darwin's work is "bad science," but bad science can only be countered with good science, not theological arguments.
Most of the people, past and present, who disagreed with Darwin did so on religious grounds. In science, that argument is meaningless. Granted, Darwin's theories turned theology as we know it completely upside-down. But so what? That doesn't prove him wrong.
Upvote
0
Darwin was written maybe 100 years ago, and you feel there are bits and pieces that have been tossed out.
Moses wrote around 3500 years ago, and each generation to come along ever sense then has found it all to be true.
DNA puts Moses more on center stage. Because the DNA record goes a long way to showing his 5 books to be true. Up to now archeology has been the branch of science to show it was true.
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
My hat is off to you, John, for even being able to pretend to believe this. Are you trying to say that everyone who has ever lived for the past 3500 years finds Moses to be completely true?
Or are you saying, as I believe you are, that in every generation, there is a large number of people who do believe it to be accurate and literally true? So what? Truth is not a popularity contest. The masses have been wrong in the past, and they will be wrong in the future. Or, as someone much wiser than both of us once said:
"There's a sucker born every minute." --Phineas T. Barnum.
I'm not familiar with the "DNA evidence" you're alluding to. Can you be more specific? Post a link, maybe?
As for archeology, well, nobody's denying there's a great deal of historical accuracy in the Bible. After all, it was writeen when a lot of that history was taking place. but proving bits and pieces of the Bible true does nothing to prove that it's all true. It only proves that bits and pieces are true.
Upvote
0
http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/11/10/ancestors/
"Around 80 per cent of European men are descended from a single primitive hunter, according to a new study."
The Bible talks about a man who was created on the 6 th day. Now there is a problem because if the earth is 4.5 billion years old, then the man created on the 6 th day would have to go back 60 or 70 million years. But it is really not a problem, because the age in the DNA is not based on the oldest man or women. Just the olderst man or women that has decendants still alive today.
"About 8,000 years ago, said Underhill, a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life: agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration."
Now, isn't that interesting. The Bible talks about a man who was formed 6000 years ago, that was put in the garden of Eden, to tend the garden. He sas the first as the study shows to introduce agriculture. He had quite a profound effect on Europe.
So, science and the Bible maybe 2000 years apart on this. But science has been known to make mistakes before. After all, it turns out age of the universe is 2 billion years less then what they thought it was.
At BYU in Provo, Utah, they have a more extensive DNA study going on where they have already taken 26,000 samples. They have been collecting genologys for over 20 years now. The Mormons do believe in the Bible and I am sure that the Bible will have an impact on their study.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050200sci-genetics-evolution.1.GIF.html
Upvote
0
John you have hammered this point so often.You are not going to change me into a christian.Rather you prove the opposite
Upvote
0
euphoric
He hates these cans!!
- Jun 22, 2002
- 480
- 5
- 49
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
That is the most bizarre argument I've seen yet. Precisely what are you trying to imply? That the Adam described in Genesis was actually the first man to introduce agriculture rather than the first actual man? Or is there some weird Euro-centric bent here that I'm missing? Nothing in that article seems to even remotely support a literal Genesis account (or a Genesis account of any kind for that matter). What are you driving at here?
-brett
-brett
Upvote
0
The most bizarre arguements come from science. Right now scientists are trying to claim that green aliens that speak perfect french, cloned themselves and started mankind.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/021227/5/r2q4.html
I KNOW the Bible is true and accurate. So much of what comes out of science proves not to be relyable or accurate at all. I was just trying to give science the benifit of the doubt, even though they have been proven to be wrong so many times. While no one has ever proven even one bit of the Bible to be wrong.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
True. For instance, in Descent of Man Darwin states that men are intellectually superior to women. He bases that conclusion upon faulty data -- which he lists. Darwin also accepted the current theory of inheritance of his day: blended characteristics. And this theory is stated in several of his works. As we know today, the theory of blended characteristics is wrong. The irony is that natural selection does not work under blended characteristics but does work under the correct theory of inheritance, Mendelian genetics. So Darwin was wrong about the theory of inheritance but right about natural selection.
Gould argued for a time that Darwin insisted that the pace of evolutionary change was constant or at least that all species were changing. It was that erroneous view of Darwin that he attacked and promoted PE as being anti-Darwin. Later Gould changed his mind as people pointed out passages that showed Darwin did not hypothesize a constant rate of evolutionary change.
John, my Ph.D. mentor once told me that if I was not making two mistakes per day that I wasn't working very hard. Since science works by falsification it is inevitable and necessary that scientists be wrong sometimes. That's not important. A surprisingly high percentage of Darwin's ideas survived rigorous testing. While not correct 100% of the time, Darwin was correct a lot more often than most of the rest of us.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Originally posted by JohnR7 The most bizarre arguements come from science. Right now scientists are trying to claim that green aliens that speak perfect french, cloned themselves and started mankind.
Let's be accurate here. The Raelians are a religious organization. Saying that they were contacted by aliens in a manner that has no witnesses or evidence is no different from Moses saying he spoke to a burning bush with no witnesses or evidence. That a few scientists are also Raelians is no different than that 40% of scientists (at least) are theists. What matters is the theories and the testing of them. The theory that humans were gengineered by aliens can be tested, has been tested, and is false.
I KNOW the Bible is true and accurate. ... While no one has ever proven even one bit of the Bible to be wrong.
Accurate how? Theologically? Scientifically? Historically? If the last two, then much of the Bible is false. For instance, rabbits don't chew their cud and camels don't have cloven hooves (or is it single hooves? whatever, the Bible has it wrong). Nor was Jericho sacked in the time frame of the Exodus. Just 3 examples. Does that make everything in the Bible false? No. Because each claim must be evaluated separately. But your blanket statement is not defensible. There is on www.infidels.org a whole list of factual and historical errors in the Bible.
So much of what comes out of science proves not to be relyable or accurate at all.
Science changes theories when new data becomes available. That is what it is supposed to do. When the new data is available, then you reevaluate all the ideas affected by that data -- including the theological ones.
This is no different than what religions do. After all, wasn't Judaism changed after the life, death, and resurrection of Yeshu ben Joseph? That was new data, and it required (in the opinion of the followers of Yeshu) changes in Judaism. Changes so sweeping that they became a new religion.
Or look at the dream of Peter in Acts. That new data -- in the form of a dream -- caused all the dietary laws of Judaism to be tossed out. That dream made all the dietary laws wrong. So even internally the Bible is not right all the time.
Let's be accurate here. The Raelians are a religious organization. Saying that they were contacted by aliens in a manner that has no witnesses or evidence is no different from Moses saying he spoke to a burning bush with no witnesses or evidence. That a few scientists are also Raelians is no different than that 40% of scientists (at least) are theists. What matters is the theories and the testing of them. The theory that humans were gengineered by aliens can be tested, has been tested, and is false.
I KNOW the Bible is true and accurate. ... While no one has ever proven even one bit of the Bible to be wrong.
Accurate how? Theologically? Scientifically? Historically? If the last two, then much of the Bible is false. For instance, rabbits don't chew their cud and camels don't have cloven hooves (or is it single hooves? whatever, the Bible has it wrong). Nor was Jericho sacked in the time frame of the Exodus. Just 3 examples. Does that make everything in the Bible false? No. Because each claim must be evaluated separately. But your blanket statement is not defensible. There is on www.infidels.org a whole list of factual and historical errors in the Bible.
So much of what comes out of science proves not to be relyable or accurate at all.
Science changes theories when new data becomes available. That is what it is supposed to do. When the new data is available, then you reevaluate all the ideas affected by that data -- including the theological ones.
This is no different than what religions do. After all, wasn't Judaism changed after the life, death, and resurrection of Yeshu ben Joseph? That was new data, and it required (in the opinion of the followers of Yeshu) changes in Judaism. Changes so sweeping that they became a new religion.
Or look at the dream of Peter in Acts. That new data -- in the form of a dream -- caused all the dietary laws of Judaism to be tossed out. That dream made all the dietary laws wrong. So even internally the Bible is not right all the time.
Upvote
0
I am perfectly aware that to prove the truthfulness of the Bible is not going to get people saved. Isreal never questioned that what Moses was telling them was true. They never questioned that there was a God. They fully believed in the truthfulness of what Moses was telling them. But it did not cause them to want to be saved. It did not always cause them to want to turn away from their sin and turn to God in order to live for Him.
The objective is not to always get people saved. Sometimes the objective is to get them to stop telling lies that are hindering the work that God is doing. If I can get people to get out of God's way, I maybe able to buy them a little bit of time in this life and that will give them a chance to maybe repent later on and come to God in order to live for Him.
God is going to accomplish His purpose. It is just a question of what is it going to take, to get people out of His way, so that He can accomplish what He intends to accomplish. I have seen to many people die a early death, so I am happy if I can get people to prolong there life here on Earth. Then if after a long life they decide not to go with God, then at least they had a long life to think it over. They had a chance to reconsider their position.
It is the people that die an early death that I have trouble coming to terms with. I wonder, if they had made a few better choices, so they could have lived longer, would they have reconsidered and decided to go with God and accept His offer of redemption. Those who die an early death have lost that opportunity forever.
Deut. 30:19 I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
John, if your purpose is proselytizing, why are you on a science forum? Science is agnostic.
What's worse, trying to "prove" the Bible the way you are doing is actually counterproductive. By insisting that all the Bible is true and free of errors, you are actually setting the Bible up to be falsified!! Instead of "saving" people, you are actually driving them away from Christianity and showing Christianity to be false!
This is the real tragedy of creationism. Christianity has no more bitter enemy than creationism. If you truly believe in God and Satan, then my conclusion is that you are really doing Satan's work.
Upvote
0
Moses had tons of evidence. Not the least of which was the parting of the Red Sea. Let's see if you can duplicate that one. No one at the time questioned the truthfulness of what Moses was telling them. That did not cause everyone to repent and turn away from their sin. But they knew what Moses was telling them was true. Sometimes they questioned if God loved them. But again and again He would prove Himself to them.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
NO! Because this is not a religion! Darwin is not a prophet or savior! He is a scientist that came up with 5 very powerful explanations of how the physical universe works. Those theories have withstood testing and therefore we admire his ability as a scientist. But we are not about to go through his published works and edit them to eliminate any factual or logical errors. Is that what you religious guys did with the canon? Did you edit the books in the Bible to eliminate what you considered errors?
Today we have the peer-review system to check papers for accuracy before they are published. But that does not apply to books, even today. And there was no prior peer-review in Darwin's time.
Science is about testing ideas to see if they match external, physical reality. That's it. The only "authority" in science is the physical universe. Why is that so hard for creationists to grasp? Some scientists have made contributions that allow broader insights into the physical universe and how it works. But it is the insights that are important, not the person.
Upvote
0
To john you have picked it right .I was supposed to have died six times. I type one handed but after six years I have survived but my brain survived apart from fractured skull. I ask for no symptnany but I will not put up with stupipity
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Praise God for that. I hope He gives you a LONG healthy life. May His blessing be upon you.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Originally posted by JohnR7 Moses had tons of evidence. Not the least of which was the parting of the Red Sea. Let's see if you can duplicate that one.
Nice attempt to change the subject. The point was that Raelians were not science but religion. I notice that you never disputed that one. Therefore I'll conclude that you agree. Instead, you are trying to argue for the accuracy of your own religion. Now, let's test your specific claims.
Moses had no evidence of his conversation with the burning bush, did he? Did he bring a branch back with him? What you are claiming is that his later actions showed that he had Yahweh on his side. Therefore, by implication the conversation with the burning bush took place. However, that conversation is irrelevant to the later actions. Moses could have decided to do it on his own hook and either the results were coincidence or Yahweh decided to back him. Of course, all this is assuming the Bible is accurate about the events; we are not even getting into whether the events of the Exodus happened at all.
The whole point is that you or I can't duplicate the Parting of the Red Sea. Our not being able to duplicate is a point of weakness, not strength! We are left, like the Raelians, trusting that the account is accurate. The Raelians trust that the account of Rael and his encounters with aliens is accurate.
No one at the time questioned the truthfulness of what Moses was telling them.
Sure they did. Remember they made the golden calf!
That did not cause everyone to repent and turn away from their sin. But they knew what Moses was telling them was true. Sometimes they questioned if God loved them. But again and again He would prove Himself to them.
Irrelevant to the discussion. We are not talking about sin but whether Raelianism is science. Try to stay on point, John. It was your claim that science was "absurd" because the Raelians were science. Now that you admit by silence that your claim is false, we are done.
Nice attempt to change the subject. The point was that Raelians were not science but religion. I notice that you never disputed that one. Therefore I'll conclude that you agree. Instead, you are trying to argue for the accuracy of your own religion. Now, let's test your specific claims.
Moses had no evidence of his conversation with the burning bush, did he? Did he bring a branch back with him? What you are claiming is that his later actions showed that he had Yahweh on his side. Therefore, by implication the conversation with the burning bush took place. However, that conversation is irrelevant to the later actions. Moses could have decided to do it on his own hook and either the results were coincidence or Yahweh decided to back him. Of course, all this is assuming the Bible is accurate about the events; we are not even getting into whether the events of the Exodus happened at all.
The whole point is that you or I can't duplicate the Parting of the Red Sea. Our not being able to duplicate is a point of weakness, not strength! We are left, like the Raelians, trusting that the account is accurate. The Raelians trust that the account of Rael and his encounters with aliens is accurate.
No one at the time questioned the truthfulness of what Moses was telling them.
Sure they did. Remember they made the golden calf!
That did not cause everyone to repent and turn away from their sin. But they knew what Moses was telling them was true. Sometimes they questioned if God loved them. But again and again He would prove Himself to them.
Irrelevant to the discussion. We are not talking about sin but whether Raelianism is science. Try to stay on point, John. It was your claim that science was "absurd" because the Raelians were science. Now that you admit by silence that your claim is false, we are done.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Locked
