Conflict between religion and science

[kristina411]

Then it seems we have been talking across purposes here, since I have been referring to Creationism whereas you have been talking broadly about "creation" in a nonspecific sense. Scientists resolutely reject Creationism, as your own source indicates. This does not imply, however, an outright denial that "creation," in the nonspecific sense, is possible.

I was referring to the actual meaning of creationism:
cre·a·tion·ism

\-shə-ˌni-zəm\
noun

: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect
From Miriam online
Full Definition
:a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis

 

[Gottservant]

OP

naive

you are conflating commitment with confinement to memetic invariance and trying to imply that means narrowness of interpretation (without justifying it)

there is an experiment to which only God is the answer, only a fool rules out that that could ever save someone (selah)

 

[bhsmte]

I'm curious how you can back your claim that many Christians are not creationists when that is the foundation of our belief, that Jesus is the Son of God, The God of Abraham and Moses, God is the creator of heaven and earth. So to say opposite would not classify you as a Christian. Some other new off the wall belief (spinning off of Christianity) maybe but Christian no.

If you read the article and backing information you would see the scientists deny any claim to creationism completely.

I have shown through illustration twice why the Bible should be used as evidence and yet you still ignore this as well. If paintings and murals are considered evidence of Earths history. So should text, and all of it, be considered as evidence to explore. I have yet to be given a reason to say why it should not be considered.

I do not wish to run in circles on this topic as it is exhausting repeating myself.

Is it your position, that the majority of Christians throughout the world do not agree with the theory of evolution?

 

[kristina411]

Is it your position, that the majority of Christians throughout the world do not agree with the theory of evolution?

On the contrary, I never stated that, I simply stated that you can not be Christian if you do not believe in creationism. (unless there is a new spinoff of Christianity but is not Christianity). I have actually stated in a couple posts that evolution is very much possible to a degree when viewing from a Christian standpoint as well. My whole stance is that Christianity and science can co exist just fine.

 

[essentialsaltes]

On the contrary, I never stated that, I simply stated that you can not be Christian if you do not believe in creationism. (unless there is a new spinoff of Christianity but is not Christianity). I have actually stated in a couple posts that evolution is very much possible to a degree when viewing from a Christian standpoint as well. My whole stance is that Christianity and science can co exist just fine.

The definition of creationism that you presented was "the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect"

If creationism requires rejecting evolution,
and "you can not be Christian if you do not believe in creationism"
Then Christians who accept evolution are not Christians.

So either it is not true that your stance is "that Christianity and science can co exist just fine"...
Or it is not true that you are using creationism the way your definition defines it...
Or it is not true that you think "evolution is very much possible to a degree when viewing from a Christian standpoint "

So if you can clarify that, it will help the discussion.

 

[kristina411]

The definition of creationism that you presented was "the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect"

If creationism requires rejecting evolution,
and "you can not be Christian if you do not believe in creationism"
Then Christians who accept evolution are not Christians.

So either it is not true that your stance is "that Christianity and science can co exist just fine"...
Or it is not true that you are using creationism the way your definition defines it...
Or it is not true that you think "evolution is very much possible to a degree when viewing from a Christian standpoint "

So if you can clarify that, it will help the discussion.

Or perhaps that it is true that you left out the full definition which does not exclude evolution. I have clearly stated one of the ways that evolution and creationism can co exist and will spend no more time on the matter as I have made my point numerous times. For clarification (feel free to look this up and remember to not ignore the full definition)
cre·a·tion·ism

\-shə-ˌni-zəm\
noun

: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect
Full Definition
:a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis

I was the one stating that the majority of scientists deny creationism while some Christians accept evolution while believing creationism (while others do not). I was not the one misinformed on statistics nor definitions.
The stance Christians take on evolution is not, nor has it been my point. If discussion is wished to continue, I would appreciate the responses to not reach for "flaws" in my writing. I speak my mind.
scientific creationism
noun
:a doctrine holding that the biblical account of creation is supported by scientific evidence

Hmm

 

[bhsmte]

Or perhaps that it is true that you left out the full definition which does not exclude evolution. I have clearly stated one of the ways that evolution and creationism can co exist and will spend no more time on the matter as I have made my point numerous times. For clarification (feel free to look this up and remember to not ignore the full definition)
cre·a·tion·ism

\-shə-ˌni-zəm\
noun

: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect
Full Definition
:a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis

I was the one stating that the majority of scientists deny creationism while some Christians accept evolution while believing creationism (while others do not). I was not the one misinformed on statistics nor definitions.
The stance Christians take on evolution is not, nor has it been my point. If discussion is wished to continue, I would appreciate the responses to not reach for "flaws" in my writing. I speak my mind, I speak the truth and I have a family there for no time for nonsense.

The vast majority of scientists do not accept "biblical creationism" and the majority of Christians, accept the theory of evolution.

 

[kristina411]

The vast majority of scientists do not accept "biblical creationism" and the majority of Christians, accept the theory of evolution.

Read back to my earlier comments and that was the point I made with references, on the scientific part to say the least.
Om the Christian part, we Christians differ in millions of ways, one way we all agree? We were created by God (creationisms meaning)

 

[bhsmte]

Read back to my earlier comments and that was the point I made with references, on the scientific part to say the least.
Om the Christian part, we Christians differ in millions of ways, one way we all agree? We were created by God (creationisms meaning)

Ok.

The fact is, most Christians reject biblical creationism.

 

[kristina411]

Ok.

The fact is, most Christians reject biblical creationism.

Your last post said Christians reject evolution, your post now says biblical creationism... Which one do "most Christians" reject?
With new scientific data Christians are able to form opinions on things we knew nothing about before."Was six days really six days or more?"
My point... Since starting... Science and creationism very much can co exist

 

[bhsmte]

Your last post said Christians reject evolution, your post now says biblical creationism... Which one do "most Christians" reject?
With new scientific data Christians are able to form opinions on things we knew nothing about before. Was sux days really so days or more?
My point... Since starting... Science and creationism very much can co exist

Please point out, where I stated Christians reject evolution.

What I stated was, the majority of Christians accept evolution.

 

[kristina411]

Please point out, where I stated Christians reject evolution.

What I stated was, the majority of Christians accept evolution.

I apologize my words were not choice - so I edited this response.
You will understand now why our conversation will come to an end...
God bless!

 

[Gunny]

Ok.

The fact is, most Christians reject biblical creationism.

Sad, but very true. Especially in the west since the "so called age of enlightenment".

If Genesis is not true as stated I might as well discard the remainder of the scripture.

In my humble opinion I'm Not trying to be flippant but God either means what He states or He is in error.

 

[bhsmte]

I apologize my words were not choice so I edited this response.
You will understand now why our conversation will come to an end...
God bless!

Your words were not choice? I don't understand.

You admit then, that I never stated what you claimed I stated?

 

[bhsmte]

Sad, but very true. Especially in the west since the "so called age of enlightenment".

If Genesis is not true as stated I might as well discard the remainder of the scripture.

In my humble opinion I'm Not trying to be flippant but God either means what He states or He is in error.

That is one way to look at it.

 

[kristina411]

Your words were not choice? I don't understand.

You admit then, that I never stated what you claimed I stated?

Not in the least. You and I both know that you edited your comment, if not, my apologies for that as well (although I double checked before asking for your clarification on said subject). My apologies were because I became frustrated with this back and forth fame over what? I never denied nor claimed what most Christians believe. Your argument with me is unfounded and I'm afraid you are arguing for arguing sake.
I apologize for getting frustrated and my previous comment that I edited because my frustration was evident.

You have nothing to say, no point to make. At least none yet that I have seen. If you were to read back to my initial posting you will see that you are off topic when you jump in.
You disagree with me for no other reason than to disagree and that I find exhausting and useless.

 

[bhsmte]

Not in the least. You and I both know that you edited your comment, none the less I was asking for clarification and a simple "it was a typo" would have been enough for me. My apologies were because I became frustrated with this back and forth fame over what? I never denied nor claimed what most Christians believe. Your argument with me is unfounded and I'm afraid you are arguing for arguing sake.
I apologize for getting frustrated and my previous comment that I edited because my frustration was evident.

You have nothing to say, no point to make. At least none yet that I have seen. If you were to read back to my initial posting you will see that you are off topic when you jump in.
You disagree with me for no other reason than to disagree and that I find exhausting and useless.

How did I edit my comment? And which comment are you referring to?

 

[kristina411]

How did I edit my comment? And which comment are you referring to?

I look forward to future conversations and hope that next time the conversation can stay on topic and without reaching for things to disagree on.
Take care and God bless! Edit stamp?

 

[bhsmte]

I look forward to future conversations and hope that next time the conversation can stay on topic and without reaching for things to disagree on.
Take care and God bless!

I was completely on topic and replied directly to something you stated in your previous posts.

By the way, when someone edits a comment, there is an "edit stamp" that appears on their post.

So, can you tell me which comment I edited as you claim or will you retract that claim?

I value intellectual honesty and like to get the record straight.

 

[Loudmouth]

united states - Are only 700 out of 480,000 life scientists creationists? - Skeptics Stack Exchange
^ a study done in 1991 that shows that the majority of scientists (over 90% I believe) are not creationists. There are more references but it is of no use to dig, some will be unhappy with any evidence shown.

Perhaps you should read this article:

Study: 2 Million U.S. Scientists Identify As Evangelical | Christianity Today

A good chunk of scientists are christians. The problem with the survey you link to is that the definition of creationist that they are using refers to a young Earth creationism that uses a literal interpretation of Genesis. Only a minority of christians fit this definition. It isn't that surprising that christian scientists are not creationists of this type.

If you believe paintings and murals on the walls of caves as evidence of their civilization and history, I fail to see how the Bible is not granted as much value and seen as evidence and reason to explore the topic more. But it is ignored for reason, God does not owe proof to anyone, so even when it is there you will not see until you have faith. Sounds backward but I have lived it now. You will not see all of the evidence as evidence until your faith has grown. He does not want you to have faith because you see, rather to see because you have faith.
Those 700 scientists, I'd like to get to know them. I'm sure they have great minds.

Religious texts and practices hold a lot of value in the field of anthropology, but little value in the hard sciences (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology). No biologist is trying to figure out how Achilles became invincible after being dunked in the River Styx.

From my interaction with christian scientists, they believe that God acts through nature, not in contradiction to it. Evolution is as much a part of God as anything else in nature. They don't see why God needs to defy the natural processes God put in place in order to be a creator.