The Modern Era Scientist don't help me, but I still have my faith in God

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
But the important thing to remember is that this is not a conscious process. There is no thought behind it. It's literally just trying things at random and seeing if something works a bit better than what was already there.
Interestingly, (with respect to the more detailed mutation mechanism), there's recent evidence that quantum tunnelling is involved at the cellular DNA level .. an idea that has been shelved for some 50 years, due to a likely flawed assumption about the feasibility of that happening at bodily temperatures and greater system complexities:
.. the protons in the DNA can tunnel along the hydrogen bonds in DNA and modify the bases which encode the genetic information. The modified bases are called "tautomers" and can survive the DNA cleavage and replication processes, causing "transcription errors" or mutations."
"Biologists would typically expect tunneling to play a significant role only at low temperatures and in relatively simple systems. Therefore, they tended to discount quantum effects in DNA. With our study, we believe we have proved that these assumptions do not hold."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kylie
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
The claim of "ordinary" is subjective not objective.
It is used in two separate contexts - one as meaning "rare". How rare does rare have to be? the other as meaning "opposing base assumptions of what is normal present world view" The second is entirely subjective.

Rare events make classification of ordinary or extraordinary useless.
The collapse of comet ison and break up happened only once.
Did that mean it is so rare it did not happen?
Even lack of evidence does not invalidate a phenomena: it just makes it harder to make defintive statements. In a world before cameras and high power telescopes did the lack of evidence mean that comet break up did not happen? Are ancient witness statements enough?

Stuff happens or it does not.
How "common place" it is, is of no consequence. The fact something is commonplace does not mean it happened in any particular instance.
All truth must be subject to the same standard. Ask a court.

Of course the ability to model it, requires either repeating or repeatable phenomena or things which extrapolate from present model. That is part of why science is limited in what it can model.

On rarity - If we are to believe dawkins type evolutionists the creation of life happened once by accident. It is truly "extraordinary" that a self evolving and replicating 10000 chemical factory complete with software, just happened without a designer, and there is no evidence at all it ever happened. Nobody saw it. There is no visible "production line" of large scale intermediates to the first minimum cell as we know it. No record there ever were such intermediates. A complete void of evidence.
Yet it is considered "ordinary", as is consistent with atheist faith and world view, and so assumed to be true. The difference between theists and non theists is the acceptance of what part of what is believed to be true is just belief.

You produce evidence of your claimed magic pixie.

Science is a game that has rules. Sagans statement broke the rules. In scientific context. Your magic pixie is subject to the same standard of proof as any other claims.
Sagan was just summarising probabilistic Bayesian reasoning, where you update your initial credence according to new evidence. If your inital credence is low, it takes more convincing evidence to achieve the same level of credence than if your initial credence is high. I don't think it was intended to be a statement of scientific methodology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I am not sure what you are trying to convey. Are you trying to claim that the normal uncertainty in exact locations in ancient archeology, buried beneath remodelled cities , invalidates the history entirely?

The assumed location of golgotha is entirely reasonable given the layout of jerusalem at the time.
Indeed the excavation by mitsopolous found rock and features consistent with that location, including a stone ring, which appears to be the support for a cross upright. As with all things, it makes fascinating reading. Try hessemans book as a start point.

There is indeed a gate - gennath gate now found which is the probable actual route of the via dolorosa ( hadrian destroyed the original, and reused stone from buildings to construct his new city) , the location of gennath is consistent with josephus descriptions of the walls of the time, the existence of tombs show it was outside the wall consistent with Quintilian statement that they did public execution on busy highways.

Unlike other sites, jerusalem was subject to deliberate destruction, first Roman against the Jewish population generally , but also Jewish and Islamic antipathy towards the Christian cause. The flattened jerusalem was rebuilt by Hadrian on a different plan incuding deliberate insults with pagan temples. It is not therefore suprising some uncertainties remain.

Many of the locations of the Jesus' life are indeed exactly locatable, the location of the "thou art peter" speech in what was caesarea phillipi, modern day banyas. Even some in Jerusalem, take the pool of siloam.

The development of christianity over the next few hundred years is of course fascinating, not least because it was underground and in many ways illegal. Also it was an acorn that grew into an oak. Same species, different morphology.

Are you trying to say that the lack of exact certainty over thelocation of Golgotha somehow invalidates doctrine? That is A total non sequitur.

The letter of ignatius to smyrneans confirms for example the real presence of the eucharist valid only if presided by a bishop in succession. Since ignatius/polycarp were disciples of John the apostle, nothing has therefore changed in Millenia!


We "think" we do know?



It "is believed".

That's the point. This is belief. The single most important event in all of human history, no, in all of the history of the UNIVERSE, which I am told repeatedly was even made clear within DAYS of the event.

Now (here's where you stop reading) I have no problem with ancient sites being forgotten or "lost". It happens all the time. But if you listen to the most pious among us you will come to believe that Christianity is clear as a bell and there is no question about the provenance of anything. Some seem to think that Christianity wasn't largely constructed as a faith over the next 200-300 years by a wide variety of individuals working completely separate from the origins. That somehow there is some "true and original" version of the faith. That some know so much about Jesus as to be able to guide you to your eternal salvation.

As if Christianity is somehow "self-evident". That it is as simple as what is taught in Sunday School to kids.

Rather than what it actually appears to be from reading the detailed history of the faith.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,545
3,181
39
Hong Kong
✟147,424.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
I was very disappointed to hear that many scientists, such as Carl Sagan have a negative view towards the Bible.

However, reading the Bible nowhere have I ever found the Bible a statement about how old the Earth is, or the Universe. Or about how the process God created creatures and humans.

Organic matter evolving into lifeforms, which then lifeforms evolving into other things is still creation. Surely there can be God who set out the biological blueprints for this process. because the argument that matter randomly collided and formed such complex life by chance 1 in whatever extremely large number, sounds far more absurd.

How did the genetic information know how to evolve? Do we really live in a universe with infinite possibilities? if so where is the proof of that.

We have faith in God, not proof in God. There was no video recording of the resurrection, but there were plenty of documents, testimonies, and witnesses of it.

And from my finding it is believable, that this event has occurred. and if I am wrong at the end there was no harm in believing it. However, if I was right, then I am rewarded infinitely.

At the same time of course, I want to believe in what is the truth at the end of the day.

Just seeing people with very high IQ, and scientists having a negative view towards the Bible makes me feel a little uneasy, and I start to have some doubts come to mind.

A few observations
- its not " negative view of bible"
but pointing out that of the many interpretations, ones
contrary to all data and lgic are highly problematic.

-You are doing equivocation with the word " creation".
See if you can figure out how. Assuming a conclusion is
part of it.

-The OT makes it very clear that the earth is no older
than the oldest human.

-What is or is not absurd is made evident by education
and thought. Your ideas about random chance etc
are highly simplistic and totally inadequate.
Of course they sound absurd.

-"Proof" does not exist in science. Speaking of it as if it does reveals
a serious lack of scientific literacy, and need for study.

-Scientists nor anyone else can help you if you
wont help yourself.

-If your wish is to believe what is true, great.
But theres no easy- peasy way. Hardcwork,
study and thought is the price.

As for those of IQ and education observing that there is
gross absurdity in beliefs you may hold causing you
some discomfort- well it should. Taking such as the
flood story, for example, as literal is wildly at variance with reality.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,959.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Taking such as the flood story, for example, as literal is wildly at variance with reality.
So what?

Taking Pluto as a dwarf planet in 2000 would have been "wildly at variance with reality" as well.

So would saying there are 118 elements.
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
I am not sure what you are trying to convey. Are you trying to claim normal uncertainty in exact locations in ancient archeology buried beneath remodelled cities invalidates the history entirely?

The assumed location of golgotha is entirely reasonable given the layout of jerusalem at the time.
Indeed the excavation by mitsopolous found rock and features consistent with that location including a stone ring, which appears to be the support for a cross upright. As with all things, it makes fascinating reading. Try hessemans book as a start point.

There is indeed a gate - gennath gate now found which is the probable actual route of the via dolorosa ( hadrian destroyed the original, and reused stone from buildings to construct his new city) , consistent with josephus descriptions of the walls of the time, the existence of tombs show it was outside the wall consistent with Quintilian statement that they did public execution on busy highways.

Unlike other sites jerusalem was subject to deliberate destruction, first Roman against the Jewish population generally , but also Jewish and Islamic antipathy towards the Christian cause. The flattened jerusalem was rebuilt by Hadrian on a different plan incuding deliberate insults with pagan temples. It is not therefore suprising some uncertainties remain.

Many of the locations of the Jesus' life are indeed exactly locatable, the location of the "thou art peter" speech in what was caesarea phillipi, modern day banyas. Even some in Jerusalem, take the pool of siloam.

The development of christianity over the next few hundred years is of course fascinating, not least because it was underground and in many ways illegal. Also it was an acorn that grew into an oak. Same species, different morphology.

Are you trying to say that somehow invalidates doctrine? hardly. The letter of ignatius to smyrneans confirms for example the real presence of the eucharist valid only if presided by a bishop in succession. Since ignatius/polycarp were disciples of John the apostle, nothing has therefore changed!
Please start following normal process and leave the quoted reply at the top. It makes following a thread so much easier.
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
So what?

Taking Pluto as a dwarf planet in 2000 would have been "wildly at variance with reality" as well.

So would saying there are 118 elements.
What about claiming all lands came to Egypt to buy corn? Genesis 41:57 Would that be "wildly at variance with reality"?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,959.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Please start following normal process and leave the quoted reply at the top. It makes following a thread so much easier.
Yes miss. Following the “ thread” here is never easy! Too many tangents and non sequiturs. It is part of what makes it interesting.

I notice you quote Voltaire in your bio.
What few realise is Voltaire himself thought the cult of celebrity and quoting celebrities was utterly ridiculous, but for as long as his readers lapped it up, he would oblige whilst quietly ridiculing his readers!

So I prefer his quote… “Les imbéciles ont l'habitude de croire que tout ce qui est écrit par un auteur célèbre est admirable”
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,135
7,245
Dallas
✟874,322.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I was very disappointed to hear that many scientists, such as Carl Sagan have a negative view towards the Bible.

However, reading the Bible nowhere have I ever found the Bible a statement about how old the Earth is, or the Universe. Or about how the process God created creatures and humans.

Organic matter evolving into lifeforms, which then lifeforms evolving into other things is still creation. Surely there can be God who set out the biological blueprints for this process. because the argument that matter randomly collided and formed such complex life by chance 1 in whatever extremely large number, sounds far more absurd.

How did the genetic information know how to evolve? Do we really live in a universe with infinite possibilities? if so where is the proof of that.

We have faith in God, not proof in God. There was no video recording of the resurrection, but there were plenty of documents, testimonies, and witnesses of it.

And from my finding it is believable, that this event has occurred. and if I am wrong at the end there was no harm in believing it. However, if I was right, then I am rewarded infinitely.

At the same time of course, I want to believe in what is the truth at the end of the day.

Just seeing people with very high IQ, and scientists having a negative view towards the Bible makes me feel a little uneasy, and I start to have some doubts come to mind.

The Bible is a spiritual supernatural book full of miracles that are not supposed to be explainable thru science. If these events were explainable by science they would cease to be miracles and would fail to have the intended effect which was to show God’s might and glory and to bring unbelievers to repentance. If we can’t believe that miracles defy the laws of science then how can we believe in Jesus’ incarnation and His resurrection or the hundred other miracles that took place throughout the scriptures? Jesus said it is easier for a camel to pass thru the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven. I think the same could be said for many scientists.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums