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.
What is this "Christian world view?"all the creationists with PHD's in chemistry and physics that I took courses from at the university would agree that those sciences are 100% compatible with the Christian world view.
A Christian world view, yes. A creationist world view, not so much.
That makes subsequent Christian attempts to deny science self-contradictory - or hypocritical.
Yet you have agreed that physics and chemistry are not Christian conceptions .
you have free will you can reject whatever facts you wish.
What changed their minds?All of my science teachers were creationists until about half way through my university science and engineering program...
They're compatible with pretty much every world view. But you have not answered my question - which major branches of science were started by Christians?all the creationists with PHD's in chemistry and physics that I took courses from at the university would agree that those sciences are 100% compatible with the Christian world view ... in fact the Creationist world view.
The funny thing with the quote function on these threads is that it gives the name of the poster. And the name associated with what I quoted was "BobRyan". Now if you're not BobRyan, you shouldn't be using his profile. If you are BobRyan then what I stated is in your posts in black and white for all to see.You are quoting "you" again and then blaming me for what "you" say??
What is this "Christian world view?"
Interesting. All of the scientists who taught at mine were devout Christians who thought belief in a seven day creation was optional, though a bit eccentric.The Christians in my example were scientists that all accepted the Bible fact that all life on Earth was created by God in literal 7 day creation week.
Interesting. All of the scientists who taught at mine were devout Christians who thought belief in a seven day creation was optional, though a bit eccentric.
That makes subsequent Christian attempts to deny science self-contradictory - or hypocritical.
Yet you have agreed that physics and chemistry are not Christian conceptions .
The funny thing with the quote function on these threads is that it gives the name of the poster. And the name associated with what I quoted was "BobRyan". .
BobRyan said: ↑
In fact most major branches of sciences were started by Christians.
What's the point of addressing only atheists?It is "possible" they would not include themselves in the "Atheist and Creationists can agree" topic that is the subject of this thread.
What's the point of addressing only atheists?
You have been given multiple examples of major branches of science being started by non-Christians. All you have provided in return is the assertion "most major branches of science were started by Christians." Your inability to provide a single example of Christians starting a major branch of science is strong evidence against your assertion.Indeed why would any Christian want to deny science.
In fact most major branches of sciences were started by Christians.
You are quoting "you" again and then blaming me for what "you" say??
On the contrary "Phsyics and chemistry are not Christian conceptions" is a case of you quoting you.
my statement was
Christians who study science have the conception of science and in fact most major branches of science were started by Christians
You have been given multiple examples of major branches of science being started by non-Christians. All you have provided in return is the assertion "most major branches of science were started by Christians." Your inability to provide a single example of Christians starting a major branch of science is strong evidence against your assertion.
You'll have to ask them.Indeed why would any Christian want to deny science.
This claim was unsupported last time you made it - can you do better this time?In fact most major branches of sciences were started by Christians.
Not really; evolutionary ideas go back to the Ancient Greeks, if not before. Pre-Darwinian ideas of evolution were quite well advanced, which explains why Wallace came up with the same mechanism independently. Making major steps in a field isn't starting the field.Except Evolution.
If our arms had separate DNA to the rest of our bodies and there were creatures very much like disembodied arms living today who it turns out had DNA similar to our arm DNA... I'd be open to the hypothesis that arms started off as a separate symbiotic creature.
Looking for an example of a "story easy enough to tell" that everyone will agree "is just a story".
==================
Imagine if you will that "once upon a time" there were "arm humans" composed only of arms, and "Leg humans" composed only of legs and "Torso humans" composed only of human head and torso.
And suppose those individuals got together and started forming fully formed humans as we know them today, the result being the humans that we see today.
And we note that similarities are there - that the same sort of human skin can be found arm/lets/torso. We also note that the DNA in the cells of legs/arms and torso is sufficient to reproduce an entire human.
==================
regardless of the level of detail in story telling that I add to the story above -- it is pretty obvious that both atheists and creationists will view it as a "story easy enough to tell" and would doubt that it is to be taken seriously beyond "just a story".
I could even add "symbiosis" to the end of the story and it would not make it any more believable.
ahh yes - someone graciously states the obvious. I do appreciate that more than I thought I would at first. Well played. I had almost given up hope of seeing it posted today.
Is it possible that the story being told about mythical non-existent prokaryote-ish cells hopping inside a prokaryote to engage in a massive saltation-transform into eukaryote is itself a goofy story if one is not an atheist?
It is not observable , it is not repeatable. And there is no biology observation today where 11 or 12 organelles each existing as their own single-cell prokaryote-ish organism (never seen in real life as such), all suddenly pop out of the rocks and jump into a more massive prokaryote to form a eukaryote in pure saltation-miracle-goes here fashion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?