Hieronymus
Well-Known Member
- Jan 12, 2016
- 8,428
- 3,006
- 54
- Country
- Netherlands
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
That highly depends on what you consider to be "science".
I see no problem there.
Upvote
0
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.
That highly depends on what you consider to be "science".No science, not even evolution, denies the existence of G-d.
I see no problem there.That is because science does not study the question. The problem is with those who believe that Genesis is an accurate history and science book.
What possible thing can be considered "science" that questions the existence of God? You make these claims, but substantiating them seems to slip by...That highly depends on what you consider to be "science".
It cannot be proven true (without seeing the end from the beginning). The best that can be proven, is that it is [relevant] to the present understanding of what is not true in the first place.Let me ask the anti-evolution posters a question.
What if....you were proven without a doubt that evolution is true....and this earth is really really......old. How would that affect your christian faith? Would you retain it? Or would evolution being true destroy the belief in the Christian God in your mind?
Naturalistic science, i guess.What possible thing can be considered "science" that questions the existence of God?
Jaden Smith..? Is that you?It cannot be proven true (without seeing the end from the beginning). The best that can be proven, is that it is [relevant] to the present understanding of what is not true in the first place.
It doesn't discuss God at all. It deals in the objectively detectable, i.e. "nature".Naturalistic science, i guess.
"Science" as the institute that presents itself as such, propagates naturalism.
Duh.. Because they deny and / or ignore God's existence.It doesn't discuss God at all.
What possible thing can be considered "science" that questions the existence of God? You make these claims, but substantiating them seems to slip by...
Come up with some objectively detectable evidence of God's existence, and it will be scientifically relevant. Until that time, you might as well complain that the rules of soccer are wrong, because they don't address the existence of cupcakes. It's not a matter of denying/ignoring, it's a matter of being completely unrelated fields.Duh.. Because they deny and / or ignore God's existence.
It deals in the objectively detectable, i.e. "nature".
Come up with some objectively detectable evidence of God's existence, and it will be scientifically relevant. Until that time, you might as well complain that the rules of soccer are wrong, because they don't address the existence of cupcakes. It's not a matter of denying/ignoring, it's a matter of being completely unrelated fields.
The only reason I reject universal common descent hypothesis is all of the scientific objections TO it (nucleotide replacements to thymine, intergenic regulatory sequences and gene regulation hierarchies determining complexity, the deleterious nature of mutations and the mechanics of mutation, the inability for synergistic epistasis or soft selection to account for the contamination in the genome, the number of mutations needed to evolve from land animals to whales and the time frame allowed, the misalignment of nucleotide sequences for telomeric fusion in human chromosome 2, the class of sequences first expressed from the zygote to the 2 celled embryo being endogenous retroviruses and if you block their expression you stop embryogenesis at the 4 cell stage (functional "junk" DNA), retroviral like sequences 181,000 gene switches/promoters and expressions taking place in "non-coding" DNA, etc. etc.)
Christians, if they are able, really should learn the specific scientific controversies.
But it is unfortunate that scientific infrastructures censor the controversy from you
and wrongfully tell you that "there IS NO controversy."
Peer review can bury its head in the sand... but they can not hide from God on judgment day for their CENSORSHIP!
And of course that thread started by our pleading T.E. friend - is ultimately swamped by atheist and agnostic posts of the form "all-praise-evolution".
But what is more surprising is that some of the same T.E. posters here also contribute to that thread once the atheists take over - and they too merely have the same "all-praise-evolution" focus.
Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, P.Z. Meyers et al. -- freely confess that they too were driven from Christianity by their belief in evolutionism.
Is this something to be "swept under a rug"? Of no consequence ? Let the cries for help fall on more deaf T.E. ears?
Yes, those who walk in the flesh mind things of the flesh. The natural man cannot accept the things of God, because they are spiritually discerned. We reap what we sow.
Popular force fed assumption without any proof.I think you are confusing the mere recognition of reality with praise of that reality. However, it is good to give God honor for what He actually did, which was to use evolution to create the various species including ourselves.
Those exact words could easily, sincerely, and wrongly have been used by those who crucified Jesus. Never forget the pharisees believed in spiritual things, said they were very spiritual, persuaded others they were very spiritual, and missed the working of the Spirit.
Therefore, claiming you have the Spiritual advantage over your opponents is a hollow, useless claim.
Use evidence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?