-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Evolution and the Bible
- Thread starter MSBS
- Start date
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
Yeah, if you can actually come up with fresh new ideas, you can get a job on the radio thinking for people. Most people are afriaid to think for themselves. Some people have problems with me, because I say things they do not expect to hear and they do not know how to react. They do not have a conditioned response. So often I have to talk in cliché's so people will be comfortable to be around me. Or so they will not be uneasy.
If historicly, you look at what they do to people with fresh new ideas, it is not always pretty. It has not been so bad in the last 100 years here in America. But remember, a lot of people come here to do their research, because it is banned in their country.
Upvote
0
- Jul 29, 2002
- 1,860
- 103
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
I've give an example as it relates to my research. During genetic studies in some pathogenic bacteria, it became obvious that some of the genes present in their genome had been aquired by a process known as lateral transfer from an external source. This led to a number of research techniques that involve knocking out genes in order to see the effects on pathogenesis (this has led to a better understanding of disease and the development of better treatment stratagies). Furthermore, using these natural processes scientists have inserted genes into other organisms that make it possible to produce enzymes used in biomedical research and to produce drugs more cheaply and efficently.
Upvote
0
In fact, I think the only reason scientists spend time on it at all is because of the repeated attacks on evolution teaching in schools by fundamentalists. If that element were not present, I imagine that you would not see any books defending evolution or anything like that.
-Chris
Upvote
0
- Jul 29, 2002
- 1,860
- 103
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Better in the opinion of researchers doing double blind studies.
Sorry, but everything does not have the success that we've had treating polio or smallpox. Many diseases that used to kill thousands every year are so rare that most people in the industrialized nations don't even know what they are now. Ever hear of someone dying from typhoid? In the 18th century it was common place. The husband of the queen of England died from it. Now days, a ten day course of anti-biotics and all is well.
Besides that, what is wrong with something only slightly better than a sugar pill? Do you suggest that that isn't better than doing nothing? Is it not a major step that 50% of cancer patients now survive, when a hundred years ago cancer was almost a sure death sentance? Incremental steps save lives. In chemotherapy you basically poison someone with the hopes that the fast growing cancer cells we be the first to die, in order to save the lives of the patients. It works for some and not others, and we'd like to do better, but 50% survival is better than 0% isn't it? Magic bullets aren't easy to come by, and most of the "easy" stuff has been done.
The human genome project has raised the possiblity of treatments tailored to individuals based upon their genetic heritage, but it's going to be a long time and a lot of work before anything comes from it. Should we not continue research along those lines? Literally, it will cost billions of dollars and take millions of man hours of research and may only result in improved treatment or partial cures. It'll still be worth it.
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
Double blind studies are short term studies. Also, they study short term side effect. Yet the drugs are being perscribed long term.
In a lot of cases, you would be better to do nothing and let the illness run it's nature course.
It is difficult to be able to tell anymore. Because of greed the market is getting so flooded with different drugs, that you really can not tell the good ones from the bad ones anymore.
Over time they sort out the bad ones. But by then the drug industry has already made it's money and they are pushing the next generation of drugs.
http://www.mercola.com/2000/jul/30/doctors_death.htm
It is not just drug companys being driven by greed. I see it in so called christians also. There is money to be made in Bibles, so now they are flooding the market with all sorts of different Bibles and Christian books. Most of them do not represent God at all.
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
The drug companys put more money into advertising than they do into research. Always have, always well. They do not spend as much on research and development as they try to lead people to believe. Then the system is flawed because they are only allowed to profit off of their drugs for a set period of time. So they have to come out with a "better" next generation drug to keep making money.
Genetic research promises to give you 120 years of life, then what? It could be a trap. Everyone is putting their hope in it right now. If it proves not to be true, then what are you going to come up with to promote for them to put their hope in? I say put your hope in God and what God can do for you, not man or what you think that man can do for you. That does not mean we can not get help from people, but ultimately we need to put our faith, hope, love and trust in God.
Technology or the drug industry is not your saviour people. Even if they can do what you think they can, ultimately your going to die anyways. Jesus is life and He offers eternal life to those who come to Him. He is the NEW and the LIVING way. Eternity is going to last a lot longer then the 120 years the drug industry is claiming to be able to offer to people.
Upvote
0
What are you talking about? It's not like you have to choose between God and effective medical treatment. We're not Christian Scientists here, are we?
-Chris
-Chris
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
This is more about the difference between good medicine and bad drugs. Good doctors and quacks. Good nurses and bad nurses, and so forth. Before you submit to a treatment program, you should be sure to pray about it, to make sure that is what God is leading you to do. The "cure" may kill you.
Upvote
0
Christians do not believe that "religion is a personal matter". First, Christianity (as classically understood), is the foundation of one's life. The Bible is God's word, and religion has to do with the real world. When God says, "Jesus rose from the dead", or "Jesus will come and judge the world", these beliefs are true and about the world we live in.
Creationists do not believe in a conspiracy of evolutionists.
I have seen equal amounts of emotion and illogic coming from both sides on these forums.
While I can't say a lot about other's beliefs, what do you think that scientists in Ptolemy's time thought about opposing theories?
While some do think that scientists attack Christianity, I will grant that many do not (intentionally). However, you have so far managed to say that "religion is personal", which does attack Christianity. After all, what would you think if I said "science is a personal matter"?
The viewpoint of Christians says nothing about the actual matter of interpretation. There is a real and objective interpretation: Christian thought does not allow for subjective interpretations of the Bible. And virtually all major Hebrew scholars believe that Genesis states that:
1) The world was created in 6 24-hour days.
2) There was a world-wide flood.
3) The genealogies of Genesis 5&11 can be added up to give the age of the earth at the time of Abraham.
Upvote
0
Do you have a source for that? Because I've worked for a major pharmaceutical company and I've seen the budget for my research department and I don't believe they could spend more on advertising.
Regardless, of course the industry is motivated by profit. How else could they stay in business? But the fact is, if they come up with a good drug, they make money. If they come up with a bad drug, the FDA won't pass it. It happens all the time. The system works pretty nicely.
Upvote
0
Hate to break it to you, Matthew. Religion does not equal Science. Just because you believe your religious views are correct does not make it so. It's still a personal matter. I believe my political party is the right one so should everyone be a communist?
Upvote
0
That's just your opinion. I don't share it. And that assertion would require support.
Just because you believe that "Evolution is true" does not make it so. It's still a personal matter. (After all, did you really think I would agree with your first sentence?)
Oh. And everyone should not be a communist, because it is the wrong party. (Not that I greatly care what you put your membership in. I do tolerate it.)
Upvote
0
fragmentsofdreams
Critical loyalist
You won't get anything more than empty rhetoric out of YEC's because as soon as they stop using empty rhetoric they quickly stop being YEC's.
Upvote
0
fragmentsofdreams
Critical loyalist
Upvote
0
- Jul 29, 2002
- 1,860
- 103
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
You are arguing semantics here, but whatever, my intent was to say that scientists, like people in any other workplace, tend not to talk about issues, such as religion, that people get emotional about-- at work you maintain a professional attitude and get along with your co-workers. You can found your life on what ever belief system you want to, but preaching at co-workers, be you Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc. is bad manners, as is being anti-Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Hindu in the work place.
Some do, and I've seen it being posted about. But my point was that to say biology has been hijacked by evolutionists, you have to have a conspiracy to prevent any dissenting views. I don't see it happening now, or to have happened at all since the ToE was first elucidated.
No argument here. What I was talking about was everyday people and not forum goers. The average biologist could care less about YEC, and really feels no need to address it. YECs are all vociferously anti-science.
There were no scientists in Ptolemy's time. Science did not exist as a intellectual tool until the renaissance. There were natural philosophers and many addressed topics that scientists now address, and I'm sure many held opposing views and were quite emotional about it, but so what?
I wouldn't care in the slightest. Scientific experiments, in order to have any validity, have to be presented to the public and scrutinized by the peers of the people presenting the data, but the practice of science can be very personal. Its a powerful intellectual tool and nothing more.
Some Christians believe otherwise, but I suppose you'll say they aren't true Christians. No matter, as I have said before, the YEC view is not supported by the data, and that data is not going to go away, no matter how much rhetoric is thrown at it. What it comes down to, and where I think this debate becomes so heated, is that some people look at science as being anti-Christian. It's not. Many scientists are Christians and many Christians believe what science has elucidated about life and the universe, it's not an either/or proposition. I know what your feelings are on this, but I look at your beliefs in this matter is just being the dogma of your particular sect, and I'm not impressed with them. No insult intended.
Upvote
0
Your sentence is a perfect example of empty rhetoric. It a fallacy (mistake in reasoning) called ad homenim. I tend to avoid being convinced by illogical nonsense.
To be more correct, "It is your belief that preaching at... is bad manners." And "It is your belief that being anti-Christian, Jew... is bad manners". While it is bad manners to force beliefs or insult people, it is not bad manners (but a command of God) to witness to co-workers.
I was referring to educated creationists.
Really? I don't think so at all. One can simply have a common structure that prohibits dissent. Do you know of any peer-reviewed journals that would accept explicit creationist articles if they have evidence?
That is absolutely incorrect, as well as being an ad hominem. Answers in Genesis (a YEC organization), has professional scientists on staff.
Not quite. My example pertained to suppression of dissent without conspiracies.
An interpretation of the Bible must have been presented to the public, and scrutinized by scholars. The opinion of individual Christians has very little to do with the matter.
No. I would say (as I said at the top of the section you quoted):
This is a discussion of evolution and the Bible. It is not a discussion of evidence for YEC!
No again. Some people look at evolution and say "This is not science". And they see Richard Dawkins say "I believe, think that you need a God to explain the existence of the world, and especially the existence of life. They are wrong..."
Just becuase a Christian believes that "Christianity and evolution are compatible" will not make it so. Further, I define Christianity as (at least) agreement with the Nicene Creed and the inerrancy of scripture. Do your scientists agree with these things?
They are not feelings, and you don't have to be impressed with them. I believe that all the evidence points to the fact the the writer of Genesis intended to say exactly those things I attributed to him. If you want to see the evidence in detail, just say so.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
