klutedavid
Well-Known Member
- Dec 7, 2013
- 9,346
- 4,337
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
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.
Hello Ken.A group of women visited the tomb, not all are named by all the Gospels. Matthew names only two of the group. You are assuming that "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary" were the only women there.
If you are interested in debating this subject I suggest you start a new thread.
All true. But we can only work with the evidence we have. And if all the evidence we have at the moment says "evolution is a thing", it's kinda silly to discard it because of the unfounded possibility that i's wrong.Hello Armoured.
Science makes errors and profound errors at times.
Science is an ideology, if the premises and assumptions that science is
founded on, are sound. Then science may proceed to gather evidence
and knowledge. The only problem that occurs eventually, is science reaches
limitations in what can be known and understood.
By the application of the empirical methodology, there always exists the
possibility that forces exist beyond the comprehension of science. For
example, astrophysics needed to invent dark energy to explain a universe
that is expanding at an accelerating rate. The standard model that astro
physics uses is incomplete.
Currently quantum physics, is reaching areas of study that appear beyond
our understanding. We may be reaching these points of limitation, upper
and lower bounds of intellectual endeavor.
I don't think that's what they mean. A dog to a dog to a dog.... still a dog..... that's not going to help explain amoeba to a fish over time, then fish to lizard to bird.....Mouse to fish would take too much time. But the very thing you ask for here has been demonstrated by the great variety of dog breeds, for example.
And that's the type of reasoning you're going to use to supersede the Scriptures?Yeah yeah. Said over the internet.
Sure, science makes errors, then corrects them. That doesn't change the fact that evolution is a science, supported by scientific evidence.
Here are some Scriptures imploring us to put the Scripture at such a high level...though you really don't need more than what was already cited you:This should prove useful:
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution.
Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
It's amazing that decades later this article is till relevant today. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out, means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it.
I'm not commenting on the scriptures at all. I'm commenting on people claiming evolution "is not science".And that's the type of reasoning you're going to use to supersede the Scriptures?
How about rather than using "but the Bible SEZ!" appeal to authority arguments, you point out some of the flaws in evolutionary theory, if you feel they be so compelling?Here are some Scriptures imploring us to put the Scripture at such a high level...though you really don't need more than what was already cited you:
Deuteronomy 6:6-8:
These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.
Proverbs 6:20-22:
20 My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother:
21 Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck.
22 When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee.
Your were already given that man is not to live on bread alone, but on every word which proceedeth from the mouth of God. (Matthew)
The big point is you are tossing major segments of Scripture and grabbing hold of a flawed theory...it robs God of some of His great Glory and Majesty.
Evolution is science.I'm not commenting on the scriptures at all. I'm commenting on people claiming evolution "is not science".
1. Requires deep time.How about rather than using "but the Bible SEZ!" appeal to authority arguments, you point out some of the flaws in evolutionary theory, if you feel they be so compelling?
Hello Indent.
Fact is something that is proven. A natural science relies on observational data,
hence, the conclusions found in the natural sciences. Cannot ever be proven,
can never be considered as fact. A fact is not something that is highly probable.
Stephen J Gould needs to read the dictionary definitions.
The further you travel back in time, the more difficult the task becomes for
evolutionary theory.
If science cannot really come to any conclusion about the origin of the dog.
Which was a recent event, 10 000 to 30 000 years, how can we trust science
to go beyond 30 000 years for any other species.
You must be kidding yourself, the evidence is observable, science cannot even
understand the ancestry of dogs.
Personally, I like Jamie Lee's respnse, and for which I nthink is more ot less:
Empirical evidence can't be wrong
the bible can't be wrong
So perhaps our interpretation of the scripture is wrong.
Personally, I like Jamie Lee's respnse, and for which I nthink is more ot less:
Empirical evidence can't be wrong
the bible can't be wrong
So perhaps our interpretation of the scripture is wrong.
1. Requires deep time.
2. Has gaps.
Those fingerprint patterns on the gun are merely like the fingerprints of my client, you honor, lets not leap to the conclusion my client is guilty based on mere "like" . .3. Assumes like means connected.
Like Windows, but you keep using your computer anyway.4. Constantly being modified.
Atheists agree the sky is blue, so that means it isn't blue?5. Popular with atheism and other forms of unbelief.
Oh, the reason you don't like it is because its to hard for you? And that makes it false?6. Requires science to understand.
And for some strange reason, we split into so many denominations believing alternate theologies all with the same bible, and you think this is a logical rebuff?7. Doesn't allow for: BUT THE BIBLE SEZ!
You realize that Gould was an established and respected scientist?
He spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University, and unlike the questionable names mentioned in this thread associated with the Discover Institute, Gould had an impressive academic career. To suggest that “Gould needs to read dictionary definitions” is not just ignorant and pretentious, but it’s an affirmation that the Christian enterprise has suffered a tremendous blow.
The attitudes of many evangelical Christians (many, but not all) today is a disgrace to Christianity, and continues to disenfranchise us from the world by smearing its reputation and credibility. It impoverishes our churches, and taints our youth with callousness, pride and conceit.
This post demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of the scientific enterprise, the foundations of which lends itself to credibility, and its failure to understand the post. Yes—evolution is a scientific fact, and most scientists are more than comfortable calling it just that. The vast majority of scientists with an intimate understanding of evolution call it that.
Who is kidding themselves?
The scientific consensus does not change because some chump on a Christian forum disagrees. That's not how it works. You have no control on consensus or definitions. Get over yourself.
I keep hearing Christians babble on about how easily “dispute” evolution is, and it’s not “science” (back by scientific-sounding words, and evangelical rhetoric), so we’re told, but I don’t see these people or these Christian institutions attempting to persuade the consensus. There are, however, unethical and scandalous people appealing to politicians and school boards (being thrown out of the courts, rightly so).
If evolution is so vulnerable, how has it remained so dominant?
It continues to thrive in the academic arena, which is far more unforgiving and ruthless than Bible thumping Christians. It stands up in the peer-review process, where the best minds from around the world engage in a competition of ideas... criticism and scrutiny are the hallmark of academia.
There's not a single argument in this thread that proves injurious, let alone a deathblow, to the fact of evolution itself. There's no question that science does not have all the answers, and it's entirely possible that some of the processes will be subject to revisions. But the fact that we did evolve, that's inescapable.
Should we use the same wildly unrealistic criteria for fundamentalist Christians and their beliefs?
Very good post! Anti reality biblical interpretation can take a hike!
Already haveHow about rather than using "but the Bible SEZ!" appeal to authority arguments, you point out some of the flaws in evolutionary theory, if you feel they be so compelling?
You missed the part about evidence.And that's the type of reasoning you're going to use to supersede the Scriptures?
If empirical evidence can't be wrong, how did we get our moon?Empirical evidence can't be wrong
What's His name?God provided deep time.
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?