evolution vs. Evolution

[miamited]

Oh and by the way. To say that these fields are no longer dominated by atheists is certainly not the same as saying that they are filled with a majority of believers in the one true and living God. Muslims are not atheists, but neither do they hold to the same truths that the one true and living God has made plain to all people. Hindus are not atheists, but neither do they hold to the same truths of the one true and living God. Buddhists are not atheists, but neither do they hold to the truths of the one true and living God. Friend, in order for there to be any hope that most scientists believe and hold to the truth of the one true and living God, then they have to be people who themselves who hold to the truths of the one true and living God. Otherwise, while we don't label them atheists, the truth is that they are still people whose faith and belief system is founded on something other than the truth.

 

[frogman2x]

It is ironic that those who do not believe in evolution choose to capitalize it. Clearly they put far more into it than do the people who actually believe in it.

I NEVER capitialize evoluion and i doubt if he majority of Christiasn do either.

The Right views science as a liberal ideology, that is what is going on. It is ridiculous, science is not an ideology,]quote]

Right but evolution is and it is not real science. CAn you giveme one eampel of something the ToE preaches that can be proved scientifically? Just one will do.


I can prove more in the first chapter of Genesis than you can prove from the whole of evolution.

but since conservative Protestants in particular are profoundly lacking in things like college degrees in Science, their arguments become more and more puerile.

What about those who have college degrees and many have advanced degrees. They rejec evoluion so how do you account for that? Do you have an advanced degree? If so what in?

What about those Christians who have advanced degrees in a science discipine, have done researh for a secular company and who have taught in a major university and still reject evolution. How do you account for that.

I will be waiting for your example of something that has been proven that the evos preach. Just make sure it has been proven scientifically.

k

 

[Fascinated With God]

Dunbar has blown my mind. I'm as upset as Creationists that Biology is so dominated by atheists.

That is my belief at this point and I don't see how adding further statistics is relevant to this.

 

[Dunban]

Dunbar has blown my mind. I'm as upset as Creationists that Biology is so dominated by atheists.

That is my belief at this point and I don't see how adding further statistics is relevant to this.

Do you mean Dunban? lol

I will also accept being called 'Dundun' if you insist.

I don't see why the atheist domination bothers you. How many Christians have won Nobel Prizes? None, to my knowledge. How many are prominent in the scientific world? None. How many are great inventors or innovators?

Science is only concerned with what it can see and measure. Religion is only concerned with its sacred rules, scriptures and what cannot be measured or seen. The two can never mix, really. Creationism proves that.

 

[Dunban]

Well, when you have a vocal, though relatively small, group of theists constantly dinning it into their heads that they can't believe science and also believe in God, I expect most scientists would decide they must choose atheism.

Unfortunately, the vocal claim that one must choose between science and God is a lie. How much atheism can be laid at the feet of creationists who perpetuate this lie?

Well, science is only concerned with observable facts. While religion is pretty well the opposite. The Creationist movement proves this much.

 

[Dunban]

Yeah, but what's being claimed there is a lie. Evolution isn't anti-God, and believing scientists don't accept because they're intimidated. They accept it because it works: it explains a vast array of data in multiple fields, it consistently predicts new data, and it provides a framework for fruitful research. No alternative that is remotely competitive exists. Creationism, in particular, avoids dealing with data whenever possible, makes either no predictions or consistently incorrect predictions (depending on the flavor of creationism) and is quite sterile as a guide to further research.

Creationism isn't science as far as the discipline actually goes. It's anything but. It's more a branch of Apologetics than it is any actual, hard science. It's more concerned with attempting to discredit actual science than making any gains in the actual realm of scientific inquiry.

"The bible says it, that settles it" for most. And that's okay. What's not okay is trying to teach that as a scientific fact when it is not. It's a creation story, not a scientific exposition.

 

[Papias]

FWG wrote:

Dunbar has blown my mind. I'm as upset as Creationists that Biology is so dominated by atheists.

Whoa, hold on. Did he present evidence? he may well be right, but no one should be blowinging anyone's anything without presenting evidence.

Papias

 

[Dunban]

FWG wrote:


Whoa, hold on. Did he present evidence? he may well be right, but no one should be blowinging anyone's anything without presenting evidence.

Papias

Maybe he did his own homework and research, like a true seeker of truth, rather than expecting someone else to do everything for him, like a child? Just a thought.

 

[gluadys]

Well, science is only concerned with observable facts. While religion is pretty well the opposite. The Creationist movement proves this much.

Not really. Creationism is an aberration of religion and should not be taken as a representative sample. So it proves nothing about religion.

 

[Dunban]

Not really. Creationism is an aberration of religion and should not be taken as a representative sample. So it proves nothing about religion.

If it was a fringe group, I'd agree but it isn't. Look at this forum - nearly all Creationists. Talk to an orthodox Jew or a Muslim. Creationists.

Remember, "evolution is anti-god, a religion of the secular" so naturally we must be weary of those godless scientists that lie to us to lead us astray. /tinfoilhats

 

[gluadys]

Do you mean Dunban? lol

I will also accept being called 'Dundun' if you insist.

I don't see why the atheist domination bothers you. How many Christians have won Nobel Prizes?

Hmmm. It would be an interesting project to check that out. There have been many Christians who have made significant contributions to science, but I don't know which, if any, won a Nobel Prize for their work.

Lot of work to check it out though.

How many are prominent in the scientific world? None.

Oh there are some prominent in the scientific world. Francis Collins is probably the best known because of his work on the Human Genome. Then there is Georges Lemaitre who was the first to propose the Big Bang theory. Then there is Mary Schweitzer whose discovery of organic matter in a 68-million year old dinosaur fossil catapulted her to prominence. Well-known dinosaur expert Robert Baker is not only a Christian but ordained in the Pentecostal church.

Historically there were scientists like George Washington Carver who did a lot of work on developing practical uses for peanuts and soybeans. Of course, historically almost all European scientists from the 16th through the 19th century were Christian--at least formally.

How many are great inventors or innovators?

Quite a few, I expect, but I've done enough research for one post.

Science is only concerned with what it can see and measure. Religion is only concerned with its sacred rules, scriptures and what cannot be measured or seen. The two can never mix, really.

Not mix, perhaps. But co-exist. They do have different fields of interest. Religion will never be science and science is not (or should not be) religion. But they needn't be in conflict either. It is not a problem to be a believer in a religion and also be respectful of science. Nor is it a problem to be immersed in science and also be religious.

This is possible precisely because science limits itself to what can be seen and measured and so does not impact on the heart of what religion is about.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Historically there were scientists like George Washington Carver who did a lot of work on developing practical uses for peanuts and soybeans. Of course, historically almost all European scientists from the 16th through the 19th century were Christian--at least formally.

.

George Washington Carver (famously called the "Peanut Doctor" and one responsible for revolutionizing the world with his creations), whom many consider to be an Eco-Monk/Eco-Missionary for the extensive amount of ways that he transformed communities/sought to show the love of Christ. ....he was truly amongst the greatest minds ever of the 20th century...and there are others besides that.

It's just a matter of awareness....

 

[Assyrian]

Hmmm. It would be an interesting project to check that out. There have been many Christians who have made significant contributions to science, but I don't know which, if any, won a Nobel Prize for their work.

Lot of work to check it out though.

List of Christian thinkers in science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I count 23 Nobels.
There is also
List of Jewish atheists and agnostics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have counted 30 atheist and agnostic Nobel winners in the sciences 37 Nobels in all. But this is from about 160 Jewish Nobel winners. So 123 of the Jewish Nobel prize winners are theists.

 

[Papias]

Dunban wrote:

FWG wrote:

Dunbar has blown my mind. I'm as upset as Creationists that Biology is so dominated by atheists.

Whoa, hold on. Did he present evidence? he may well be right, but no one should be blowinging anyone's anything without presenting evidence.

Papias
​

Maybe he did his own homework and research, like a true seeker of truth, rather than expecting someone else to do everything for him, like a child? Just a thought.

Well, sure that's possible. Maybe FWG looked up solid statistics and found you to be correct. However, neither he nor you have provided such evidence, and if he looked it up, he didn't say so. He only said that you had blown his mind, after you posted an unsupported statement.

So, FWG, did you look up statistics? Did you find evidence related to this?

Thanks-

Papias

 

[ChetSinger]

If it was a fringe group, I'd agree but it isn't. Look at this forum - nearly all Creationists. Talk to an orthodox Jew or a Muslim. Creationists.

I agree. I believe creationism has been the majority opinion of the church throughout it's history. After all, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". No one's going to read the Bible and conclude we mutated from monkey-like creatures unless they already believe it to be true.

 

[gluadys]

List of Christian thinkers in science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I count 23 Nobels.
There is also
List of Jewish atheists and agnostics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have counted 30 atheist and agnostic Nobel winners in the sciences 37 Nobels in all. But this is from about 160 Jewish Nobel winners. So 123 of the Jewish Nobel prize winners are theists.

Wow. Thanks, Assyrian. Never know what you can find on Wikipedia.

 

[gluadys]

I agree. I believe creationism has been the majority opinion of the church throughout it's history. After all, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".

Depends what you mean by "creationism". After all theistic evolutionists are also called evolutionary creationists. As evolutionary creationists we do believe that God created heavens and the earth and all things in them seen and unseen.

No one's going to read the Bible and conclude we mutated from monkey-like creatures unless they already believe it to be true.

True, and that is what we would expect given the time in which it was written. Similarly no one's going to read the Bible and conclude the earth is a sphere unless they already believe it to be true. No one is going to read the bible and conclude the universe is expanding unless they already believe it to be true. And no one is going to read the bible and conclude that two gases combine to make water unless they already believe it to be true.

The absence of reference to post-biblical scientific discoveries in the biblical text is not an argument that they are untrue.

 

[Calminian]

...True, and that is what we would expect given the time in which it was written. Similarly no one's going to read the Bible and conclude the earth is a sphere unless they already believe it to be true.

You're using a different term from earth, though. Scripture defines earth (erets) as the dry land. You'll see this is the meaning of the term all throughout scripture. I don't think you can ever make the case for planet earth anywhere in either testament. Thus the ancients wouldn't have thought of earth as a sphere or a disc, but as the land with many hills and valleys and coastlines (ends of the earth).

No one is going to read the bible and conclude the universe is expanding unless they already believe it to be true.

Actually, scripture says is 17 different places that the heavens were stretched out by God. The expanded universe is a very biblical concept.

The absence of reference to post-biblical scientific discoveries in the biblical text is not an argument that they are untrue.

But it is equally wrong for you to pour modern meanings into ancient nomenclature. Scripture used terms with specific meanings. There are some modern term that work well, but many others that are not exact parallels (earth, stars, etc.).

We as modern readers need to be very careful we're not pouring out modern nomenclature into the ancient writers mind, preventing us from seeing his real intent.

 

[gluadys]

You're using a different term from earth, though. Scripture defines earth (erets) as the dry land. You'll see this is the meaning of the term all throughout scripture. I don't think you can ever make the case for planet earth anywhere in either testament. Thus the ancients wouldn't have thought of earth as a sphere or a disc, but as the land with many hills and valleys and coastlines (ends of the earth).

I agree with you. In fact the term "planet" was never used of the earth until the 19th century. And prior to the Copernican revolution it was thought that Mars, Venus, etc were simply stars that moved from one constellation to another, not anything like the earth at all. So you will certainly not find any biblical reference to anything like either Greek or modern cosmology in scripture.

Actually, scripture says is 17 different places that the heavens were stretched out by God. The expanded universe is a very biblical concept.



But it is equally wrong for you to pour modern meanings into ancient nomenclature. Scripture used terms with specific meanings. There are some modern term that work well, but many others that are not exact parallels (earth, stars, etc.).

We as modern readers need to be very careful we're not pouring out modern nomenclature into the ancient writers mind, preventing us from seeing his real intent.

You just blew my irony meter, Cal. I agree with your last two paragraphs entirely. But in the preceding paragraph you just did what you yourself condemned in the following paragraphs. You are pouring a modern meaning (expanding universe) into ancient nomenclature (stretching out the heavens). Expanding universe is not what the psalmists were writing about.

How do I know?

The primary evidence of the expanding universe is the red shifting of distant galaxies.

In biblical times, no one had any clue that galaxies or deep space even existed. They even thought they could build a tower high enough to reach heaven.

Further the stretching of the heavens is always mentioned as a one-time action--just like the spreading out of the earth over the abyss and setting it on foundations. There is no hint that it is an ongoing process in the present as the expanding universe is.

 

[Calminian]

I agree with you. In fact the term "planet" was never used of the earth until the 19th century. And prior to the Copernican revolution it was thought that Mars, Venus, etc were simply stars that moved from one constellation to another,

Well, they actually were stars in that nomenclature. Star was simply a word for luminary (small light in the sky). In our day the meaning has changed and both expanded in some areas, and narrowed in others and has become more specific. But that's a modern change. That in no way means the ancients were wrong in their descriptions. Both stars (modern term) and planets (modern term) are stars (ancient term) which means luminaries.

You just blew my irony meter, Cal. I agree with your last two paragraphs entirely. But in the preceding paragraph you just did what you yourself condemned in the following paragraphs. You are pouring a modern meaning (expanding universe) into ancient nomenclature (stretching out the heavens). Expanding universe is not what the psalmists were writing about.

How do I know?

The primary evidence of the expanding universe is the red shifting of distant galaxies.

In biblical times, no one had any clue that galaxies or deep space even existed. They even thought they could build a tower high enough to reach heaven.

Expanded and stretched are the same thing tough. They're synonyms. The ancients didn't understand the substance of the universe as we do today, but they understood the concept of expansion. In fact the heavens are called "the expanse." They knew it was an open expanse (how else could clouds move through it?) And they knew God expanded it via revelation. I find that quite amazing. I certainly wouldn't have come up with the idea of expanding space, but lo and behold, scripture had it right. The expanse was indeed expanded. In this case, science merely caught up to revelation.

Further the stretching of the heavens is always mentioned as a one-time action--just like the spreading out of the earth over the abyss and setting it on foundations. There is no hint that it is an ongoing process in the present as the expanding universe is.

True, and for all practical purposes, the universe expansion has come to a halt. There's some very relatively slow expansion going on (which is why you uniformitarians require 14 billion years), but for the most part, the expanding is complete. But the slow expansion we see today ironically enabled us to grasp the concept of an expanding heavens (something the ancients already knew about).