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.
I was NOT trying to "explain" anything. I was merely stating a fact. I am not out to "explain" biology. Believe it or not, I leave that to scientists to do. It is ONLY when scientists or biologists or evolutionists or atheists or teachers inject THEIR anti-religious convictions and say that science or biology "concludes or proves" that God did not create it as stated in the Bible, that I disregard their conclusions and speak out against them.
My point was that it is YOUR side, rather than Christians, who are always making the distinction that there is no physical, natural evidence presented, therefore, the existence of God cannot be. It is YOUR side who is always discounting and insulting God BECAUSE supposedly "evolution" provides evidence that we all came from sludge or chaos or whatever (which it really does NOT have, it is only "speculation" to that end) and therefore, the Biblical account cannot be true. But, neither the speculation nor the conclusion can be proved nor borne out. IN TURN, Christians respond to YOUR "shoving this down our throats" and then you cry that we are shoving it down yours.
It's a straw man to say that evolution is the reason atheists are atheists.
How could you possibly get THAT out of what I said????
Evolution is simply science and tells us about the real world. You can accept evolution and believe in a God (most people who accept evolution do). It is creationism that is utterly false and had its claims completely rebutted. If creationism = God for you, well, yeah I guess you would have to reject God to accept evolution. But don't blame me for that.
First of all, without evolution, we can't really make sense of why DNA is the way it is, why animals are distributed the way they are on the planet, why microorganisms become virulent, etc. We could understand a lot about biology but never understand why.
But if you want specific applications of evolution, I'll give you a couple.
1. Microbial resistance. Pathogens become resistant to therapies rather quickly, which is clearly evolution. We've had pretty good success in combating this because of our understanding of this process. The new flu vaccine every year is because of this, and the new generations of antibiotics.
2. Gene identification and discovery. Looking at the evolution of genetic material gives us clues at protein structure and function. Homology of different genes gives us insight into normal physiology and how to treat pathologic states.
3. Phylogenetics and epidemiology. With evolution, we can learn a lot about populations of pathogens. The evolution of SIV to HIV marked the introduction of AIDS into humans. Currently, a new strain of malaria is brewing in Indonesia, and close surveillance of its epidemiology and diversity will hopefully help us be ready for it if it jumps to humans.
4. Directed evolution breeds new drugs for various diseases, as well as biopolymers and pigments.
5. Evolution is the foundation for many algorithms used in engineering, computer science, architecture, drug design and discovery, etc.
Read up on more if you feel like it
CA215: Practical uses of evolution.
what should it be used for, if the accuracy of its content is
a problem?
One can hardly use the Bible to judge the accuracy of a science textbook. Perhaps you can define as to what is the accuracy of the Bible referring to? If it is referring to something spiritual then no one can challenge that but if the Bible is used to challenge the accuracy of any scientific textbook then I am afraid that you have no idea as to how science works!So only scientific text books have 'accuracy of content' do they?
How is creationism "utterly false"? It is not my opinion that creationism has had it's claims completely rebutted. Just because there have been some legal cases won does not mean anything was proved. Court cases are won on technicalities more than evidence. I don't know where you are getting your info but it's wrong.
Thank you, very interesting.
I'm sure putting my reply into context will help...One can hardly use the Bible to judge the accuracy of a science textbook. Perhaps you can define as to what is the accuracy of the Bible referring to? If it is referring to something spiritual then no one can challenge that but if the Bible is used to challenge the accuracy of any scientific textbook then I am afraid that you have no idea as to how science works!
what should it be used for, if the accuracy of its content isThey know that the Bible is not a science textbook. People should stop trying to use it as such.
a problem?
Have a nice day
Using the Bible as a science textbook automatically means that there will be major issues, the least of which will be accuracy. Genesis alone has been totally refuted by science. You cannot use a spiritual guide as a science textbook. Science is not faith based nor spiritual. Science is based on the falsifiable whereas any religion is based on the unfalsifiable.I'm sure putting my reply into context will help...
I wasn't claiming the bible was ought to be used to challenge the accuracy of any scientific textbook, I was wondering why not using the Bible as a science textbook would automatically mean it has issues with 'accuracy of content'. I'm not a scientist by trade just a layman, though visiting forums like this has helped my understanding of how science works no end.
And yourself
So only scientific text books have 'accuracy of content' do they?
I'm sure putting my reply into context will help...
I wasn't claiming the bible was ought to be used to challenge the accuracy of any scientific textbook, I was wondering why not using the Bible as a science textbook would automatically mean it has issues with 'accuracy of content'. I'm not a scientist by trade just a layman, though visiting forums like this has helped my understanding of how science works no end.
And yourself
'.would automatically mean it has issues with 'accuracy of content
There are many, many claims of creationism that have been utterly refuted. I'm not just talking about the Dover trial, if that's what you're referring to with the "court cases" stuff. That's the tip of the iceberg. Everything creationists have claimed, be they ideas pet theories like irreducible complexity or what they see as fatal flaws in evolution, has been completely demolished by people who know what they're talking about.
Look no further than the site I already linked you:
An Index to Creationist Claims
But apparently unconvincing.
How is creationism "utterly false"? It is not my opinion that creationism has had it's claims completely rebutted. Just because there have been some legal cases won does not mean anything was proved. Court cases are won on technicalities more than evidence.
I don't know where you are getting your info but it's wrong.
umm can you point out where I said anything to the contrary? I've not been advocating the use of the bible as a science textbook, nor was I advocating using the Bible to critique any scientific literature. Are you getting me mixed up with another poster?Using the Bible as a science textbook automatically means that there will be major issues, the least of which will be accuracy. Genesis alone has been totally refuted by science. You cannot use a spiritual guide as a science textbook.
What are the philosophical assumptions underpinning the scientific method? Are they fasifiable?Science is not faith based nor spiritual. Science is based on the falsifiable whereas any religion is based on the unfalsifiable.
Well since the Bible is not trying to convey scientific information....Science uses evidences and theories to explain those evidences. The Bible by any account contains nothing of scientific value.
Don't remember saying it wasScience has very strict rules that it has to abide by in order to function properly and faith is not one of them.
The texts that i have seen used in high school are pretty bad.
Full of mistakes, and always out of date.
That does bring some degree of question about the accuracy of the rest of it, in my mind; that only seems reasonable. And if you cannot trust the accuracy of it, then, what use is it? (not meaning it has no use, but, it asks the question about what exactly the use is)
umm can you point out where I said anything to the contrary? I've not been advocating the use of the bible as a science textbook, nor was I advocating using the Bible to critique any scientific literature. Are you getting me mixed up with another poster?
I was wondering why not using the Bible as a science textbook would automatically mean it has issues with 'accuracy of content'.
"out of date" means there is new info out there that we can look at. So go and get the new version of the textbook to get access to the corrections. There is no need to "discern where they are correct and where they aren't" if you're prepared to put in the effort and funds to get a new version.If we cannot trust the accuracy of science textbooks then what use are they? maybe we try to discern where they are correct and where they aren't. Or maybe we try to make sure they're actually saying what we think they're saying. Likewise, maybe the Bible doesn't say what we think it says.
If we cannot trust the accuracy of science textbooks then what use are they? Or maybe we try to make sure they're actually saying what we think they're saying. Likewise, maybe the Bible doesn't say what we think it says.
maybe we try to discern where they are correct and where they aren't.
Or maybe we try to make sure they're actually saying what we think they're saying. Likewise, maybe the Bible doesn't say what we think it says
You hit it on the nail head. Imagine if I were to go back in time to 1965 and asked someone to translate a document referring to the IRANGATE scandal! Well by the title alone he would think that it had to do with some gate in Iran that caused some scandal or that a scandal took place on or near some gate in Iran. But if I were to travel back to 1978 then he would know that it was a political scandal!The bible..the translation, the archaic language, the cryptic statements, etc all present tremendous problems figuring what it says...hence the 37,000 sects, and the endless debate over what it all means.
Id agree that its not likely that much of it actually means what anyone today thinks it means.
You hit it on the nail head. Imagine if I were to go back in time to 1965 and asked someone to translate a document referring to the IRANGATE scandal! Well by the title alone he would think that it had to do with some gate in Iran that caused some scandal or that a scandal took place on or near some gate in Iran. But if I were to travel back to 1978 then he would know that it was a political scandal!
We do not know the nuances of the ancient Hebrew nor the Greek to know what exactly they meant. Although some are easy to understand: "It is easier for a camel to go through........." but other parts cannot be taken at face value.
You sound like an educated woman --Scripture interprets scripture.
yep seek and ye shall find 37,000 sects worth of difference about what the thing means.And yet, for both the Bible and Irangate we have information available to us to help us discern what is what. One only needs to seek and they will find. Especially the Bible because it has it's own information. Scripture interprets scripture. And then there's the eternal God. He's His own vast source of information and He makes it readily available to those who seek Him.
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?