• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

How interested in the US elections are you?

Discussion in 'UK and Ireland' started by GreenMunchkin, Sep 8, 2008.

Do the US elections matter to you?

  1. Hugely important

  2. Taking a casual interest

  3. Meh...

  4. There's an election?

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. GreenMunchkin

    GreenMunchkin Likes things. And stuff. But mostly things. Supporter

    +6,771
    Christian
    Married
    This didn't show up in my subscribed threads, for some reason. Am sorry. It looks really rude that I didn't respond :hug:
    Except there *are* scientists who also believe in creationsim. Have a look http://www.answersingenesis.org and you'll see that for many, creationism is something defendable. It's a genuine area of apologetics. I personally don't hold to a literal translation of Genesis, but many do, for what they feel are legitimate, scientifically valid reasons.

    Macro-evolution isn't verifiable, either, but that's taught as a science. Science isn't as black and white as that.

    Ghosts and homeopathy... I wouldn't be so quick to say no with those. I don't believe ghosts exist, but enough people do to validate it being taught. At least an exposition of what they could be. And homeopathy has legitimate affects on the body. So, again, that has scientific merit. But, no, the sun circling the earth is crazy talk and doesn't belong in a science class.

    But, again, so does macro-evolution. It's so far untested, unverified and 100% theory, and yet it's taught as fact.

    So teach kids about both - give them all the information we have on both, and allow them to come to their own conclusions. Both schools of thought do have merit.
     
  2. TemperateSeaIsland

    TemperateSeaIsland Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi

    +162
    Atheist
    Single
    Dont worry about it, after tonight I'll be quite busy so a worthwhile response may be slow coming but I'll definitely try to address your comments as soon as possible.

     
  3. MarcusHill

    MarcusHill Educator and learner

    976
    +73
    Atheist
    Married
    UK-Liberal-Democrats


    Oddly enough, all are Christians. It's interesting how no atheist scientists look at the evidence and come to those "valid conclusions", and yet the vast majority of Christian scientists follow the evidence and find it points overwhelmingly at evolution.

    Although science isn't a democracy, the science that gets taught in school is, by necessity, only the science that is accepted by overwhelming consensus in the scientific community. This consensus can and does change when evidence is presented, even when the new position was initially denigrated - for instance, the bacterial cause of the majority of stomach ulcers was widely doubted until experiments proved it was so. The problem with creationism is the total lack of real evidence.




    What do you mean by "macro-evolution"? I'm afraid that most creationists either don't have a real idea, or hide behind a definition that is basically "whatever level of evolution hasn't been observed yet" tautological definition. Scientifically, the only definition of "macro-evolution" that makes sense is when speciation occurs - two descendants of the same creature that can no longer interbreed. That has been obseved numerous times, both in the lab and in nature.

    No scientific experiment has demonstrated the existence of ghosts. There is no cogent, rational explanation of "what they could be" beyond the imagination and pattern-seeking nature of humans. They don't belong in a science class. Anthropology or psychology, perhaps, in explaining why people believe they see things that aren't there.

    Repeated scientific studies have shown that the effect of homeopathy is indistinguishable from the placebo effect. A combination of confirmation hypothesis, people's reluctance to think they've shelled out good money for a small vial of water and the underestimation of how powerful the placebo effect actually is account for the good anecdotal evidence touted by homeopaths. It would serve as a decent case study in the scientific method, demonstrating that no amount of anecdotal evidence trumps proper controlled trials in science.

    As I mentioned, only creationists think any major aspect of evolution is unverified, and that's because they reason from conclusions and deny evidence that contradicts those conclusions. It is this antiscientific way of doing things that makes it devoid of merit in a scientific sense.
     
  4. huldah153

    huldah153 Active Member

    501
    +12
    Of course an atheist would accept the theory of evolution. If you don't believe in any gods, you're not going to say that a god did it.

    Although many agnostics, such as David Berlinski and Fred Hoyle, have vehemently opposed evolution.
     
  5. Pogue

    Pogue left CF, please see profile for further details Supporter

    +490
    Atheist
    Private
    UK-Greens
    Sorry if all this has been said before- don't have time to go through the whole thread!
    For me, they are hugely important just because US politics, and I suppose culture as well, has a huge impact on the UK and the rest of Europe. I have been told in the past that perhaps I don't have any room to comment on the US elections or have an opinion on the candidates because I'm a Brit and it doesn't concern me, but it does, because the USA is the biggest superpower around today and carries an enormous weight in international politics. We're involved in a war at the moment, and if it wasn't for the friendship between the US and the UK, I doubt we'd be involved to anything like the same extent, and that's why it's so important for me.
    I'm held back a little by my general ignorance about the workings of American politics, though :)
     
  6. MarcusHill

    MarcusHill Educator and learner

    976
    +73
    Atheist
    Married
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    But ID proponents don't say that a god did it, they say an "intelligent designer" did, whilst remaining resolutely noncommittal about the identity of the designer. If the evidence really did point that way, thousands of atheist biologists would be busily searching for the identity of the designer whose existence is shown by the evidence.

    Berlinski is a mathematician, Hoyle was a cosmologist. Show me an atheist biologist who rejects evolution and you might just have the beginnings of an argument from authority.
     
  7. TemperateSeaIsland

    TemperateSeaIsland Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi

    +162
    Atheist
    Single
    Oh I certainly know there are scientists that believe in creationism, As I said one of my friends in university was a creationist and a scientist but the work she did had no baring in evolution or creation.

    I know about AIG and are actually a good example of what I talk about when I state creationism is anti-science... I invite you to read their statement of faith here

    The quote above from their statement of faith essentially says no evidence no matter how compelling will change our minds on what we accept as the truth. Would you regard such a view as being scientific?

    They have a conclusion and they will stick to it no matter what, which is the exact opposite of how science should work.

    I'll take it that when you say Macro-evolution your talking about common decent; there is actually quite a lot of evidence for this.

    Just taking the genetic evidence of humans sharing a common ancestor with other apes (chimps, gorillas, etc...) pseudogenes and ERV's can be used as phylogenetic markers that are easily explained and predicted by common decent but make little sense coming from a design POV. Also there is the fusion event of human chromosome 2, which is my particular fav piece of evidence.

    Ghosts really have very little in the way of evidence outside of the anecdotal. People can make mistakes when it comes to perception; this is especially true when exposed to environmental effects such as infrasound, which seems to be present in many places with a history of ghosts.

    Homeopathy can be explained by the placebo effect, which can be very powerful. Just to note if homeopathy actually worked then all we think we know about chemistry would be wrong and we would be unable to utilize our current knowledge for anything. But we can and do use our knowledge of chemistry for a range of processes everyday.


    But some people actually think this, shouldn’t their views be promoted also?

    Actually it's constantly tested because it's a applied science. If it didn’t work then the theory would be modified to fit the new data. If the theory cant incorporate the new data it is effectively falsified and a new theory would take it's place.

    You need to be careful with your terminology here, a theory in science isn’t a guess; it's the highest level an idea in science can get to. Other things that are 100% theory are atomic theory and germ theory.
    Can you show how creationism has scientific merit?
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2008
  8. TemperateSeaIsland

    TemperateSeaIsland Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi

    +162
    Atheist
    Single
    LOL! We can't be that interested in the US elections considering the way this thread turned out.
     
  9. huldah153

    huldah153 Active Member

    501
    +12
    Not really, because science does not test the supernatural; when such an idea is unsupported by science, falsifiability goes out of the window. The scientific method is based on the assumption that the natural world is the result of natural processes.

    I'm not arguing from authority, I was disputing your claim that all skeptics of naturalistic evolution are fundamentalist Christians.
     
  10. Markus6

    Markus6 Veteran

    +320
    Christian
    Married
    I voted "hugely important" though I'm not sure my interest is quite that extreme. It's certainly a lot more than a casual interest. I'm currently living in the states so it might actually affect me and I'm surrounded by people who are quite interested.

    On the way this thread has turned, I have to say, of all the issues involved in the election, Palin's stance on evolution is probably the most insignificant. I say that as an outspoken evolutionist. She will have absolutely no power to affect the teaching of biology in the country and I doubt she'd even choose to if she could.
     
  11. MarcusHill

    MarcusHill Educator and learner

    976
    +73
    Atheist
    Married
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    So ID isn't science, then. Or do you want to have your cake and eat it?

    I claimed nothing of the sort. Read what I said and what I was replying to. I said all the ones who claim creationism is defensible on AiG are Christians (I didn't even say they were all fundamentalists, since they're not). Nice strawman, though.
     
  12. huldah153

    huldah153 Active Member

    501
    +12
    For the record -- I am not a creationist, or an ID proponent.
     
  13. MarcusHill

    MarcusHill Educator and learner

    976
    +73
    Atheist
    Married
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    The fact remains that there are three possibilities:

    ID isn't science

    ID is science, but the evidence doesn't back it

    ID is science, the evidence backs it, but the Super Secret Cabal are suppressing it

    (Incidentally, are you one of those rare transitional cdesign proponentsists? :p)
     
  14. Carolyn H

    Carolyn H Regular Member

    545
    +32
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Republican
    I think God is bigger than the US elections, and I pray HIS will is done!!!!
     
  15. huldah153

    huldah153 Active Member

    501
    +12
    No, I'm a crevolutionist - I believe that species have evolved, but I also believe that God set the whole process in motion.
     
  16. artybloke

    artybloke Well-Known Member

    +427
    Christian Seeker
    UK-Labour
    So did he stop creating after he started it going?

    Personally, I have no problem with the theory of evolution as a scientific theory. Nor with subsidiary theories such as abiogenesis. It neither says that God did it, nor that God didn't do it. It merely describes what happened, and what the processes were/are that power it.

    Science can't do metaphysics. Metaphysics can't do science.
     
  17. huldah153

    huldah153 Active Member

    501
    +12
    That's more or less what Francis Collins believes. Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required.
     
  18. artybloke

    artybloke Well-Known Member

    +427
    Christian Seeker
    UK-Labour
    How about the idea that God is involved in creation from the beginning, intimately involved in the process of evolution itself?

    Maybe the problem is the idea that God only gets involved in these "supernatural interventions" and not in the day-to-day natural processes? (Maybe that's why I'm noving toward a more process/panentheist theology?)
     
  19. huldah153

    huldah153 Active Member

    501
    +12
    A friend of mine is an advocate of God-guided evolution. She doesn't believe in the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection, but instead that God is the one who designs through manipulation of DNA blueprints. Both theories are plausible IMO.
     
  20. Judy02

    Judy02 Well-Known Member

    +470
    Christian
    Single
    Who would everyone like to win in the US elections coming up very soon? Anyone have any preferances?
     
Loading...