Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
the origins of the bible
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="drich0150" data-source="post: 53551177" data-attributes="member: 218229"><p>So how many Christian scientists have made "factual" contributions to the current version of evolutionary theory? Can you name them?</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Which validates my original point. in that one would have to substitute deeply held religious belief in order to be taken seriously in realm of science and history. Because in the church of Science and History "faith" is based on facts (Facts are statements that can be proved true or false. Facts are not always true.) </p><p> </p><p>The Christian's faith is one based in just that, Faith. Simple belief in something beyond one's comprehension. </p><p> </p><p>You're saying all a Christian has to do to be come a legitimate scientist is to prove what he believes. And I'm telling you, to do so, would undermine that persons foundation of belief.</p><p> </p><p>The end result is the same no matter how you try and spin the facts. True Christianity has to be sacrificed in order for one to obtain real accreditation in your faith.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>If there is absolutely NO demand for devotion then what are you doing here? Why spend so much time trying to seek and save the lost? Why put forth the effort? Have you honestly looked at all the work you have put into this one thread? Why not just be wronged or take it on the chin when we speak against what you believe?</p><p> </p><p></p><p>I would like my profession of faith to be accepted at it's face value.. Do you know what it is I even believe?</p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: darkgreen">I said:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: darkgreen">Why do I have to accept in full, your version of events?</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p></p><p>Then why does this conversation continue? Why do you counter my statements with your own doctrinally correct statements?</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>You are arguing what it is you think all of Christianity would argue. I have made points very clear and have carefully worded my responses to not attack the facts of evolution nor have I made any assertions that all or most of scientific theory to be false. If you can prove otherwise Cut and paste and i will either explain what you have misunderstood or retract my statements.</p><p> </p><p>This shows me you want to be involved in an argument that you are prepared for so badly that you are over looking what it is I am saying, or you are simply not able to comprehend what it is I am trying to communicate.</p><p> </p><p>In this instance I am trying to communicate that just because Science and History has labeled something a Fact does not make it true. Again a fact is a statement that can either be proved or disproved, it has little to no bearing on "truth." Because fact are not necessarily synonymous with truth, it takes a measure of faith to believe your favorite facts to be true.. That's it, no more or no less.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Truth can be found in facts, but that is not to say all facts are true. If this were the case not one innocent man would ever see the inside of a jail. All trials are based on the interpretation of facts and evidence (much like scientific theory) Even so, in the pursuit of truth facts are misinterpreted, falsified, or not completely known. If an innocent man gets a life sentence for a murder he did not commit, but the facts in the case do not support His innocents then does that mean in truth, the man is guilty? According to your faith it does. Because apparently Things (facts) are considered true until proved differently..</p><p> </p><p>..and that is why your system of belief is in fact a faith.. Because blind belief in facts despite truth, is a simple belief in something beyond your immediate comprehension. Which is a definition of faith. I know science is marketed as an educated man's faith and therefore is not a faith at all, but a chain of logic based in what you perceive to be complete truth..</p><p> </p><p>But as you have attested it is not.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Again, if science is a progressive enlighten search for the truth then why are you as it representative in this thread so bent in the conversion of all of our lost souls?</p><p>Why not just let things be? why must you prove what it is you believe?</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Actually Einstein changed newton's original theory, and i believe Hawkins has improved on what Einstein stated. Or so says my recollection of a documentary I watched on the subject a few weeks ago. (Which featured Hawkins)</p><p> </p><p>And again as I said in the past people of your faith tend to take more solid theories and pair them with theories of solid interpretation to help lend legitimacy.. One has nothing to do with another, All theories stand alone.. Unless your saying the next time the age of the world is pushed back, Gravity will be turned off.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>your argument has completely missed the point, and this example is far too gone for me to try and salvage. I have restated my points in other paragraphs. And FYI I did not state the earth was too young for evolution. If you manage to research your favorite theory alittle more you will find that the age of the earth has for the most part been pushed back, but there are some takes on evolution that refute a really really old earth. So that would mean that some believe the earth to be younger than others.. Hence my original statement.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Only History will be able to determine whether or nor there was/is ample evidence to form a proper theory. At the time there was ample evidence to prove the world was flat, but where are those people and their evidence now? </p><p>I simply suggest that a "theory" be presented as a theory, and not a true fact.. what is wrong with that? Why must all who subscribe to your faith represent what little you know as all truth?</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Why, because it no longer paints the picture you wanted to see? </p><p> </p><p>Perhaps that was my intention. Maybe I wanted you to see that for those who sit in a class room that these "apparent" falsehoods were being taught, the student did not truly know the legitimacy of the facts being presented, and that because they (you) only had the word of those who teach these changing "facts." This places you in the reality not learning truth, Because truth does not change. but in fact you were exercising a measure of the same faith we use.</p><p> </p><p>The reason I did not originally "refute" your analogy is because analogies are like fine art or even a scientific theory. It is a purposely painted picture or theory that details a point that the artist is trying to make. Your picture paints of an argument that I am only involved in by proximity. It has little to nothing to do with the direction in which I am going. but in an attempt to include you in the direction i am going, I took your "theory" and added to it. I thought you might enjoy me participating in that aspect of your faith. Like evolution and Gravity i have taken your basic principle and made it read More <em>"true" </em>given my interpretation of the evidence available.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="drich0150, post: 53551177, member: 218229"] So how many Christian scientists have made "factual" contributions to the current version of evolutionary theory? Can you name them? Which validates my original point. in that one would have to substitute deeply held religious belief in order to be taken seriously in realm of science and history. Because in the church of Science and History "faith" is based on facts (Facts are statements that can be proved true or false. Facts are not always true.) The Christian's faith is one based in just that, Faith. Simple belief in something beyond one's comprehension. You're saying all a Christian has to do to be come a legitimate scientist is to prove what he believes. And I'm telling you, to do so, would undermine that persons foundation of belief. The end result is the same no matter how you try and spin the facts. True Christianity has to be sacrificed in order for one to obtain real accreditation in your faith. If there is absolutely NO demand for devotion then what are you doing here? Why spend so much time trying to seek and save the lost? Why put forth the effort? Have you honestly looked at all the work you have put into this one thread? Why not just be wronged or take it on the chin when we speak against what you believe? I would like my profession of faith to be accepted at it's face value.. Do you know what it is I even believe? [INDENT][COLOR=darkgreen]I said:[/COLOR] [COLOR=darkgreen]Why do I have to accept in full, your version of events?[/COLOR] [/INDENT] Then why does this conversation continue? Why do you counter my statements with your own doctrinally correct statements? You are arguing what it is you think all of Christianity would argue. I have made points very clear and have carefully worded my responses to not attack the facts of evolution nor have I made any assertions that all or most of scientific theory to be false. If you can prove otherwise Cut and paste and i will either explain what you have misunderstood or retract my statements. This shows me you want to be involved in an argument that you are prepared for so badly that you are over looking what it is I am saying, or you are simply not able to comprehend what it is I am trying to communicate. In this instance I am trying to communicate that just because Science and History has labeled something a Fact does not make it true. Again a fact is a statement that can either be proved or disproved, it has little to no bearing on "truth." Because fact are not necessarily synonymous with truth, it takes a measure of faith to believe your favorite facts to be true.. That's it, no more or no less. Truth can be found in facts, but that is not to say all facts are true. If this were the case not one innocent man would ever see the inside of a jail. All trials are based on the interpretation of facts and evidence (much like scientific theory) Even so, in the pursuit of truth facts are misinterpreted, falsified, or not completely known. If an innocent man gets a life sentence for a murder he did not commit, but the facts in the case do not support His innocents then does that mean in truth, the man is guilty? According to your faith it does. Because apparently Things (facts) are considered true until proved differently.. ..and that is why your system of belief is in fact a faith.. Because blind belief in facts despite truth, is a simple belief in something beyond your immediate comprehension. Which is a definition of faith. I know science is marketed as an educated man's faith and therefore is not a faith at all, but a chain of logic based in what you perceive to be complete truth.. But as you have attested it is not. Again, if science is a progressive enlighten search for the truth then why are you as it representative in this thread so bent in the conversion of all of our lost souls? Why not just let things be? why must you prove what it is you believe? Actually Einstein changed newton's original theory, and i believe Hawkins has improved on what Einstein stated. Or so says my recollection of a documentary I watched on the subject a few weeks ago. (Which featured Hawkins) And again as I said in the past people of your faith tend to take more solid theories and pair them with theories of solid interpretation to help lend legitimacy.. One has nothing to do with another, All theories stand alone.. Unless your saying the next time the age of the world is pushed back, Gravity will be turned off. your argument has completely missed the point, and this example is far too gone for me to try and salvage. I have restated my points in other paragraphs. And FYI I did not state the earth was too young for evolution. If you manage to research your favorite theory alittle more you will find that the age of the earth has for the most part been pushed back, but there are some takes on evolution that refute a really really old earth. So that would mean that some believe the earth to be younger than others.. Hence my original statement. Only History will be able to determine whether or nor there was/is ample evidence to form a proper theory. At the time there was ample evidence to prove the world was flat, but where are those people and their evidence now? I simply suggest that a "theory" be presented as a theory, and not a true fact.. what is wrong with that? Why must all who subscribe to your faith represent what little you know as all truth? Why, because it no longer paints the picture you wanted to see? Perhaps that was my intention. Maybe I wanted you to see that for those who sit in a class room that these "apparent" falsehoods were being taught, the student did not truly know the legitimacy of the facts being presented, and that because they (you) only had the word of those who teach these changing "facts." This places you in the reality not learning truth, Because truth does not change. but in fact you were exercising a measure of the same faith we use. The reason I did not originally "refute" your analogy is because analogies are like fine art or even a scientific theory. It is a purposely painted picture or theory that details a point that the artist is trying to make. Your picture paints of an argument that I am only involved in by proximity. It has little to nothing to do with the direction in which I am going. but in an attempt to include you in the direction i am going, I took your "theory" and added to it. I thought you might enjoy me participating in that aspect of your faith. Like evolution and Gravity i have taken your basic principle and made it read More [I]"true" [/I]given my interpretation of the evidence available. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
the origins of the bible
Top
Bottom