Christianity & Evolution Are Compatible...A Reflection

[AV1611VET]

Religion and Science are compatible in that a supernatural explanation can accommodate pretty much ANYTHING. Conversely, science is not compatible with religion.

Yup.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yup.

Of course, the only snag is that being accomodating is no substitute for being correct.

 

[uke2se]

It mattes nought if a Phd that doesn't beleive in evolution is an Astronomer. That does not undermine his credibility whatsoever.

Not his credibility. Only his capability of actually making the claim. Astronomers are not very likely to believe in creation, given that they are studying one field of science that directly contradicts the literal creation myth. A better example would be an engineer or a dentist.

Further, you made the claim that there are plenty of scientists with the relevant degrees that believe in creation. Are you going to present evidence for this? You can add astronomers to the list of physicists, biologists and geologists if you want. 50 verifiable names is all it takes to convince me that the minority of scientists who believe in creation is larger than three or four crackpots.

 

[Hespera]

Not his credibility. Only his capability of actually making the claim. Astronomers are not very likely to believe in creation, given that they are studying one field of science that directly contradicts the literal creation myth. A better example would be an engineer or a dentist.

Further, you made the claim that there are plenty of scientists with the relevant degrees that believe in creation. Are you going to present evidence for this? You can add astronomers to the list of physicists, biologists and geologists if you want. 50 verifiable names is all it takes to convince me that the minority of scientists who believe in creation is larger than three or four crackpots.

Also made this claim...


"The argument that i was responding to, was that the only accomplished scientists who believed in Creation had doctorates in Theology, or literature, and thus is undermining their credibility."

...when what I actually said was this............

"Credentialed academics" who believe in "creation" mostly have divinity degrees i expect. maybe English lit. Not physics, biology etc.


Big difference between "mostly", "I expect", and "academics", and "the only scientists". But creos always have to make up something in order to have something to attack, so...why not.

As for the credibility part tho, turn it around for a sec. Ok... here is an engineer. That qualifies him to hold forth on a level with those who do have a doctor of divinity degree? Or maybe you have to be a marine biologist. Regardless; the point is, that if ONE, let alone 50, 100 engineers and marine biologist say the bible is full of cracks, more and more biologists say so, why then.................we can only conclude, uh, what exactly?

Imagine it now. Herr Doktor Professor of Marine Ecosystems comes into a conference of Bishops to tell them all about Deuteronomy. Cant quote anything accurately, doesnt have any background, his ideas were years ago discredited a thousand times, if he has any ideas; his analysis is shallow, his conclusions dont fit the text, but, hey.... he is a Doktor or Ecosystems, so, his word is as good as any other academic's. All agreed?


Speaking of those who cant quote correctly, see above concerning 'argument I was responding to".

 

[Nathan Poe]

Also made this claim...


"The argument that i was responding to, was that the only accomplished scientists who believed in Creation had doctorates in Theology, or literature, and thus is undermining their credibility."

...when what I actually said was this............

"Credentialed academics" who believe in "creation" mostly have divinity degrees i expect. maybe English lit. Not physics, biology etc.

And in all fairness, my degree is in English Lit., and I don't buy into Creationism.

 

[marktheblake]

Would you care to address the rest of the post?

No, I told you why in the post you are quoting.

 

[marktheblake]

You don't have to be an atheist to believe a literal interpretation of the genesis creation story, as ridiculous.

You are correct, I should not have restricted my statement to Athiests, , one could also be be an agnostic, buddhist, or a snowman as well.

However, the Genesis account as a literal truth is not ridiculous to a Christian who beleives that nothing is impossible for God.

The process by which evolution occurs is very observable. Natural selection is all around you and scientists have observed natural speciation in nature at length.

Dirt to Humans evolution is unobservable, and unrepeatable.
(see I can play the endless repeating the same thing game too)

There are sources of truth outside of the bible. Science being the main one.

When I say that " the Bible is the framework through which i view things in this world." it does not mean that I am excluding sources of truth outside the bible at all.

One does not view the world through 'science', one views science through their 'world view'

But much of the bible is also blatantly mystical/allegorical.

Taking the bible seriously does not mean I have to deny figures of speech. The bible is full of them. Just because a figure of speech is used, does not infer mysticism or allegory at all.

You don't get the point. You have made it clear you think evolution is the atheists weapon against your theism. You need to know evolution is not a weapon against anything.

Evolution gives people the excuse to abandon a belief in God, that is why the Athiest preaches it with so much religious zeal. He is trying to save the world (from what I do not know).

What critical analysis? The only critical analysis creationists want is that which sows doubts into the minds of students as to the truthfulness of scientific facts

I thought science was all about being critical and analytical. So what you are saying that science should be just taught to the students and they are to believe every thing on face value?

Can you refer me to any scientific research paper, which has been peer-reviewed by a committee of experts in any field of natural science, and explains in scientific terms how an untestable, unmeasurable god, influences or controls any specific aspect of nature?

How does one explain in scientific terms something that is untestable and unmeasurable?

The Holy Bible is NOT a scientific document.

 

[marktheblake]

Not his credibility. Only his capability of actually making the claim.

Thanks but that wasnt my point. Please allow me to paraphrase (mostly) the conversation that has led to this post, for clarity, as there appears to be a misunderstanding.

Hespera: Scientists are objective, Theists are not objective
Mark: there are scientists that beleive in creation
H. they probably only have divinity degrees.
M. Plenty of scientists with Phd's in Scientific fields beleive in creation.

If a Scientists has a science degree, he must be considered objective.
That means the statement that thiests are not objective is false.

A better example would be an engineer or a dentist.

Jack Cuozzo

You can add astronomers to the list of physicists, biologists and geologists if you want

.

You could go to any Creation ministry website for a list, where do you think I would look.

A scientist is not excluded from believing in Creation (or disbelieving evolution) because his field is unrelated. That is the only point I have made.

 

[marktheblake]

...when what I actually said was this............

you actually said that Theists are not objective.

You are wrong.

Regardless; the point is, that if ONE, let alone 50, 100 engineers and marine biologist say the bible is full of cracks, more and more biologists say so, why then.................we can only conclude, uh, what exactly?

Nothing. They are all entitled to believe what they like. Just because they are not theology professors does not exclude them from believing something.

 

[SiderealExalt]

However, the Genesis account as a literal truth is not ridiculous to a Christian who beleives that nothing is impossible for God.

Immaterial to determining the credibility of a religious claim as it pertains to abiogenesis, evolution or the formation of life sustaining planets.

Dirt to Humans evolution is unobservable, and unrepeatable.
(see I can play the endless repeating the same thing game too)

Immaterial to determining the credibility of a religious claim as it pertains to abiogenesis, evolution or the formation of life sustaining planets. Also immaterial to observable evolutionary changes.

Evolution gives people the excuse to abandon a belief in God, that is why the Athiest preaches it with so much religious zeal. He is trying to save the world (from what I do not know).

Immaterial to determining the credibility of a religious claim as it pertains to abiogenesis, evolution or the formation of life sustaining planets. Also immaterial to observable evolutionary changes.

Evolutionary theory as a scientific theory has nothing to do with ANY religion. A kid or adult going, hey I just learned about evolutionary theories and the specifics there of, this information is part of why I don't believe in any deities has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. No more than my opinion on a football team and the conclusions I draw about football has ANYTHING to do with the specifics of football.

Atheists do not "preach" evolutionary theory. And I can only assume you mean preach and "religious zeal" as at best bad turn of phrases since atheists neither preach nor have religion. Make statements that are internally consistent and more than ad homs.

I thought science was all about being critical and analytical. So what you are saying that science should be just taught to the students and they are to believe every thing on face value?

Your reply has nothing to do with the statement you replied to.

The Holy Bible is NOT a scientific document.

Very good.

Oh and btw, holy bible is a redundant statement.

 

[marktheblake]

Immaterial to determining the credibility of a religious claim as it pertains to abiogenesis, evolution or the formation of life sustaining planets.

Immaterial to the context of the statement you are replying to.

and as your opening statement is immaterial it it really just shows that your intention is to preach. So Ihave not even bothered reading it.

If you care to begin again by opening in context, you may get the respect you deserve and I will read and give you the courtesy of a reply.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Immaterial to the context of the statement you are replying to.

and as your opening statement is immaterial it it really just shows that your intention is to preach. So Ihave not even bothered reading it.

If you care to begin again by opening in context, you may get the respect you deserve and I will read and give you the courtesy of a reply.

You're still just using ad homs. And looking at the thread title, yeah I was posting in regard to the topic.

 

[marktheblake]

You're still just using ad homs. And looking at the thread title, yeah I was posting in regard to the topic.

Why is an athiest posting in this thread anyway. Your point of view is immaterial to the topic.

 

[Hespera]

markthe sez....
Originally Posted by Hespera

...when what I actually said was this............
​

you actually said that Theists are not objective.

You are wrong.

Regardless; the point is, that if ONE, let alone 50, 100 engineers and marine biologist say the bible is full of cracks, more and more biologists say so, why then.................we can only conclude, uh, what exactly?
​

Nothing. They are all entitled to believe what they like. Just because they are not theology professors does not exclude them from believing something.QUOTE////////////


Well well, lying fur jesus. i did not say "theists are not objective".

If i did tho, it would not be wrong. First, nobody can be 100% objective; second, being a theist excludes consideration of non-goddidit. As in yourself.


Also, this bit about EXCLUDED from BELIEVING? Why did you make that up and bring it it? That wasnt the topic at all. Strawman strawman.

Everyone including you is entitled to an opinion. Your opinion oe evolution is worthless; that of a Professor of Theology is likewise, unless he cares to undertake a lot of study. The opinion of my hypothetical marine biologist is worthless, regardless of what he believes.

You knew that I had a valid point about 50 or 100 engineers and the value of their opinion about the bible. Could not... like so many theocreos.... stand to concede an inch, so instead you changed the subject to whether they are entitled to believe.


Little off topic here, but just a test. do you think, as one of our famous posters here does, that the "sea" in kings that is described as 10 cubits across and 30 around... do you think that those measurements are accurate, or approximate?

Id just like to know if you think that those could, and did, measure and build things precisely correct out to an infinite number of decimal places. yes / no would do; anything else is equivocation.

One last thing. Quit misquoting. Its not nice, or honest. You were calling me dishonest earlier. That title, sir, goes with less calumny and more truth, to you.

 

[uke2se]

Thanks but that wasnt my point. Please allow me to paraphrase (mostly) the conversation that has led to this post, for clarity, as there appears to be a misunderstanding.

Hespera: Scientists are objective, Theists are not objective
Mark: there are scientists that beleive in creation
H. they probably only have divinity degrees.
M. Plenty of scientists with Phd's in Scientific fields beleive in creation.

If a Scientists has a science degree, he must be considered objective.
That means the statement that thiests are not objective is false.



Jack Cuozzo

.

You could go to any Creation ministry website for a list, where do you think I would look.

Then produce it here. A list of 50 names of scientists within relevant* fields.

*Biology, physics, astronomy and geology.

A scientist is not excluded from believing in Creation (or disbelieving evolution) because his field is unrelated. That is the only point I have made.

No, and that completely misses or avoids the point I was making. Scientists within fields that are relevant to the origins of the universe or evolution are very unlikely to belive nonesense like creationism. I challenged you to find 50 names of scientists within such fields that accept YEC, but you keep dodging. Please put up, or stop making the argument.

 

[Hespera]

Uke sez..."No, and that completely misses or avoids the point I was making. Scientists within fields that are relevant to the origins of the universe or evolution are very unlikely to belive nonesense like creationism. I challenged you to find 50 names of scientists within such fields that accept YEC, but you keep dodging. Please put up, or stop making the argument."

Hespera sez...

You may be asking the unreasonable if not the impossible. When asked for actual facts, data, the theocreo is hard pressed.

Asked for something to falsify evolution, they have nothing.

Consequently, the dodge, the goddidit, the ad hom, the falsehood, but never ever ever ever will you get hard facts.

What the use of those says about the character of the user is something they might want to discuss with their better selves.

 

[marktheblake]

Well well, lying fur jesus. i did not say "theists are not objective".

well you did say..... so I am not lying.

Pure and total objectivity is probably impossible. Theists of course, make no effort at all.

I just proved to you that Theists can be objective, because there are plenty of theists that have science PHDs, and some of these accept creation. If they made no effort to be objective, they couldnt have graduated.

and then you say

If i did tho, it would not be wrong.

So you still maintain the argument that Thiests make no effort to be objective at all?

Also, this bit about EXCLUDED from BELIEVING? Why did you make that up and bring it it? That wasnt the topic at all.

Because some of gone off tangent and began to lead into something like "scientists in related fields are not qualified to speak on evolution " and that is not my point at all, so thats why I bought it up.

Your opinion oe evolution is worthless; that of a Professor of Theology is likewise, unless he cares to undertake a lot of study

No problem.

so instead you changed the subject to whether they are entitled to believe

I didnt change the subject, i reverted back to the subject I was discussing - the being objective bit.

Little off topic here, but just a test. do you think, as one of our famous posters here does, that the "sea" in kings that is described as 10 cubits across and 30 around... do you think that those measurements are accurate, or approximate?

Oh I like tests

There is something in the OT about something circular that doesnt equal Pi is that what you mean?

I have never looked into this, this but I have heard that if there is a satisfactory explanation. I could google this if you like, but then it wouldnt be my answer would it.

Id just like to know if you think that those could, and did, measure and build things precisely correct out to an infinite number of decimal places. yes / no would do; anything else is equivocation.

The blokes who built the pyramids capable of so why not.

How did I go?

One last thing. Quit misquoting. Its not nice, or honest. You were calling me dishonest earlier. That title, sir, goes with less calumny and more truth, to you.

I am quoting, but you do not quote. It is actually very hard to follow the pattern of your discussions, please learn to use the 'quote' tags. If I called you dishonest, I do not even remember.

To be honest, I still like you, even though you called me a liar.

 

[marktheblake]

Then produce it here. A list of 50 names of scientists within relevant* fields.

No. I never suggested that I would do that. I said that there are scientists that beleive in creation. Thats it.

No, and that completely misses or avoids the point I was making.

You were responding to my statements, you need to stick to the point I was making.

Please put up, or stop making the argument.

I never made the argument that you want me to substantiate, so No. You didnt even thank me for naming a dentist.

Do you realise how hard it is to find a dentist who believes in creation?

You just get a list of any scientist.
Who's Who in Creation/Evolution - CreationSuperLibrary.com

 

[Hespera]

markthe...with this comp, this is the best i can do as far as the quote function. Put someones avatar on ig and you will see what happens. i made a mistake when I tried to reverse it, and now i cant. so with this comp, this is all i can do.

now to substance. if you are going to quote me, do it exactly.

Pure and total objectivity probably IS totally impossible. When it comes to theism, theists dont make an effort; the precondition is to believe in god. So everything is filtered thru that. would you expect them to be objective interpreting the bible?
To me it is a historical novel; to them it is the word of god.


I dont expect any scientis or anyone else to be totally objective.


Am i understanding you right that you think the pyramids were built accurately to plan, out to an infinite numer of decimal places? One might of course look at a photo of a pyramid as they appear today, it would be hard to say how good they were at one time. Not hard to say if it is reasonable to think they could have been built to the aforementioned precision.

Regardless of whether one derives Pi or not, the point of it to me is...if the bible says 30 cubits, is that EXACT, or approximate? for it to be exact, or for the construction of the tank to be exact, would kind of obviously be beyond the ability of anyone.

So do you think the numbers are exact? Out to infinite decimal places?

Tell you what, btw. i might well find you likable! how about no talk aobut me being dishonest etc, no misquoting, and we will get along fine.

 

[marktheblake]

Pure and total objectivity probably IS totally impossible. When it comes to theism, theists dont make an effort; the precondition is to believe in god.

Fair enough - Same for the athiest though

So everything is filtered thru that

but that is what i was saying all along!

Am i understanding you right that you think the pyramids were built accurately to plan, out to an infinite numer of decimal places?

when i was a kid a long time ago, there were heaps of specials on the telly, suggesting something like that. maybe not to decimal places but to a accurate specification that were not thought possible by ancient man.

So do you think the numbers are exact? Out to infinite decimal places?

umm.. i must be missing the point. 30 cubits is not to a decimal place.
Now a cubit was known to me the length of a persons forearm which obviously varies, so i am not sure if one can say for sure exactly how long a cubit was (like in millimetres)

Are you intimating that the 30 cubits is 'rounded' - yeah probably, never seen anywhere quoted as 30.55 cubits for example.