|
On September 27 2013 04:47 sam!zdat wrote:
yeah, I think you are a false christian in a church that does not teach the truth! I think you have been led astray by a satan twisting the words of god! I can say it just as well as you can.
because you fetishize the text and do not take it seriously as a text which demands critical engagement. It is extremely disrespectful to a text which you claim to value. In my eyes, you are an idolator of a dead god who uses their 'faith' as a weapon in the service of arrogance and hate.
I never said anything about 'quote from satan', I said the devil also comes quoting scripture. That's YOU, cquoting a text you do not even make any attempt to understand in its context.
edit: anyway, whatever, take your thread back idolator. If I keep at this I'll say what I REALLY think about you and get myself banned
What's the proper way to quote Scripture then?
Satan does not just quote Scripture just because the Bible says he disguises himself as an angel of light. If anyone has not understood the context of Satan quoting Scripture, it's you. He can quote verses, but do you know why he quotes it? He uses Scripture to deceive us. I'll use a common verse that scares Christians:
"So if the Son sets you free, you are truly free." - John 8:36
The Christian reads this verse while having an addiction for years and years. He doesn't seem to break free from his sin, so he doubts his faith. The believer hears voices that say "yeah, Jesus said you would be free, but you still have this addiction, see? You're not actually free. God doesn't love you enough to help you." This is exactly how Satan uses Scripture: to drive people away from Jesus and to doubt his word and promises. He, or demons, does not quote truth, for there is no truth in evil. Evil is the absence of truth and anything good. I quoted truthful verses in Scripture, showing that even Satan and his minions are subject to God's authority. If I were a devil, as you claim me to be, I would not truthfully admit that all evil is under the authority of the Lord. What Jesus says about Satan:"He has always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies" - John 8:44.
|
I still don't get why you are so sure that evolution isn't God's way of caring for His creations. You say evolution seems too unlikely, why not say it is testament to the ingenuity of God? After all, surely you don't claim God's interventions are without method, as that would be the very definition of chaos.
It seems to me that you are not using the bible to determine whether evolution is possible, but that for some weird reason you decided you don't like the idea of evolution, and now attempt to use the bible to justify this pre-formed conviction. This is like the people who disliked the idea of a really old earth so they tried to find passages from the bible they could use to justify the beliefs they formed before they had consulted those very passages. Or the people who thought Earth was the center of the solar system and tried to base that belief on the bible. Or the people who thought that stars were something fundamentally different from our sun and tried to base that belief on the bible. Etc, etc.
Eventually, all those people were proven wrong, and I am convinced that within 50 to 100 years, every good Christian will laugh at the notion that the bible contradicts evolution, and in fact see evolution as God's greatest creation.
I mean, you do acknowledge that natural selection is a thing, right?
For example, the peppered moth exists in both light and dark colors in the United Kingdom, but during the industrial revolution, many of the trees on which the moths rested became blackened by soot, giving the dark-colored moths an advantage in hiding from predators. This gave dark-colored moths a better chance of surviving to produce dark-colored offspring, and in just fifty years from the first dark moth being caught, nearly all of the moths in industrial Manchester were dark. The balance was reversed by the effect of the Clean Air Act 1956, and the dark moths became rare again, demonstrating the influence of natural selection on peppered moth evolution.
Natural selection, of course, has nothing to do with self-modification. But it does imply a reduction of complexity over time in cases where certain traits and even species go completely extinct, so where does the additional complexity that makes up for this come from?
|
The primary problem of evolution from a Biblical point of view is that it relies on the earth being very VERY old, whereas the Bible suggests that the world is only ~6000 years old. There are other problems with it just from a scientific standpoint but that's the main religious one that I can think of.
|
On September 30 2013 15:07 Birdie wrote:
the Bible suggests that the world is only ~6000 years old.
I am very sad right now. :-(
|
On September 30 2013 15:09 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 15:07 Birdie wrote:
the Bible suggests that the world is only ~6000 years old. I am very sad right now. :-(
Why :O if the dates in the Bible are to be taken literally (and there's little reason not to), then Bishop Ussher's chronology of the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology) and all the other estimates generally conclude on a 6000 year old earth.
|
In early biblical times people lived for 900 years. No we are only up to what ~70 years or so? Fact of the matter is that old school people like Noah had some crazy good health. Science is ruining the planet ;(
|
At this point it should be obvious that ironmansc is either a very well executed "religious troll," or is genuinely a brainwashed drone of the " christian fundamentalist movement" of the United States. He has outright stated he doesn't "believe" in evolution (I put believe in quotes as I'm not sure if one is able to believe or not believe in scientific fact), and that he at the very least seems it is possible we are living in the "end times," which christians have been believing, off and on, for the past two millennia.
I didn't come here to "convert" anyone away from their religion, or even show why christianity is stupid. I came here to get a better understanding of why chrisitians chose to believe what they do in the modern age. I was hoping to get some interesting, original discussion from people who have thought about their religion critically and independently. What I got, for the most part, was regurgitated nonsense that you might expect to hear in in a children's bible study class. When too many poignant questions were asked, completely random non-sequiturs about jesus being great followed.
When asked to defend his position on why his interpretation was the "true" interpretation of the bible, the question was either dodged outright, or he linked some random website written by some guy that has about as much "religious" or theological training as I do (hint: none).
If you came here for "deep" exegetical or theological study, I recommend you just move along. You won't find it here. What you will find is regurgitated talking points pulled from fundamentalist doctrine that is designed to brainwash people when they are children, and keep them from asking difficult or complicated questions.
Ironmansc, I don't really care what you believe if it makes you happy in this life. What I do ask is that you please refrain from voting, or making any decision that might affect someone else's life in any way, as I find your world-view incredibly uneducated, archaic, and downright frightening. I'm done here, and thanks for the "discussion."
|
On September 30 2013 23:46 HardlyNever wrote:
He has outright stated he doesn't "believe" in evolution (I put believe in quotes as I'm not sure if one is able to believe or not believe in scientific fact) You're just arguing semantics here, i.e. you take "believe" to mean "believe without sufficient evidence". And even in that sense, there are tons of people who believe "scientific facts" just because they were told so in school, without actually comprehending what any of it means. I put "scientific facts" in quotes because science is about methods, not facts; so while you can certainly call knowledge obtained by the scientific method "scientific facts", it is important to note that this knowledge is often subject to change and updates when additional evidence is observed. In fact this is the greatest advantage of science, that it throws overbord what has become obsolete and embraces that which has proven the most accurate.
To say "I believe in evolution" or "I know that evolution is true" in an absolute sense is naïve, because to anyone familiar with the subject it is obvious that the current theory of evolution is an approximation that is not 100% accurate; much like Newtonian physics isn't 100% accurate (but still a mighty fine approximation for most applications).
This is the biggest problem with modern education; that it teaches "scientific facts" instead of the scientific method. Most of the people who talk big about "science" today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists are exactly the kind of people that would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. The difference lies only in the environment in which one was raised.
|
On September 30 2013 23:46 HardlyNever wrote:
At this point it should be obvious that ironmansc is either a very well executed "religious troll," or is genuinely a brainwashed drone of the " christian fundamentalist movement" of the United States. He has outright stated he doesn't "believe" in evolution (I put believe in quotes as I'm not sure if one is able to believe or not believe in scientific fact), and that he at the very least seems it is possible we are living in the "end times," which christians have been believing, off and on, for the past two millennia.
So because I don't believe in evolution, and that we could possibly be in the end times (or at least very close), i'm either a troll or a brainwashed drone? Which one is it? What other names do you have for me that you can think of? What if I actually am telling you the truth? You may hear it and read it, but are you really listening?
On September 30 2013 23:46 HardlyNever wrote:
When asked to defend his position on why his interpretation was the "true" interpretation of the bible, the question was either dodged outright, or he linked some random website written by some guy that has about as much "religious" or theological training as I do (hint: none).
What am I defending against? What are your beliefs, and how are they working out for you? If I can't answer something, I will reference someone who can. There is no Christian who has all the answers, and no Christian stands alone. Also, I refuse to answer some questions because some people aren't really looking for truthful answers at all.
Of course, not answering a handful of questions suddenly means I'm "uneducated," and not believing in evolution suddenly means I am "anti-intellectual" as another pointed out. Intelligence is not the deciding factor of whether or not Christianity is true, because even intelligent people can believe a lie just as someone can ignorantly believe the truth. Christianity is not a blind faith that avoids knowledge and reasoning. Rather, it rests on the belief that true faith is reasonable, intelligent and that knowledge points to Jesus Christ and not away from him.
|
On October 01 2013 00:17 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 23:46 HardlyNever wrote:
He has outright stated he doesn't "believe" in evolution (I put believe in quotes as I'm not sure if one is able to believe or not believe in scientific fact) You're just arguing semantics here, i.e. you take "believe" to mean "believe without sufficient evidence". And even in that sense, there are tons of people who believe "scientific facts" just because they were told so in school, without actually comprehending what any of it means. I put "scientific facts" in quotes because science is about methods, not facts; so while you can certainly call knowledge obtained by the scientific method "scientific facts", it is important to note that this knowledge is often subject to change and updates when additional evidence is observed. In fact this is the greatest advantage of science, that it throws overbord what has become obsolete and embraces that which has proven the most accurate. To say "I believe in evolution" or "I know that evolution is true" in an absolute sense is naïve, because to anyone familiar with the subject it is obvious that the current theory of evolution is an approximation that is not 100% accurate; much like Newtonian physics isn't 100% accurate (but still a mighty fine approximation for most applications). This is the biggest problem with modern education; that it teaches "scientific facts" instead of the scientific method. Most of the people who talk big about "science" today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists are exactly the kind of people that would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. The difference lies only in the environment in which one was raised.
I'm afraid many people might not like this insight, and I hate sucking up, but it's pretty much the best one I've heard in ages. I will definitely tell this to my kids, and in that sense hope that they become balanced enough that they don't feel the need to always pick one side and argue/defend it to death to feed to their own integrity/status of the so called ego.
The only difference though between research that is today investigated and proven to our best abilities, in the minds of many becomes more relevant than something created ages ago with virtually no proof. While I won't contest faith and the glory of life for whatever reason it came it be, I do agree that scientific fact is indeed a false term and that people should realize that there is a huge difference between scientific theory and fact.
|
You just know Ohana had to be created by a creationist.
|
On October 01 2013 05:27 peacenl wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:17 And G wrote:On September 30 2013 23:46 HardlyNever wrote:
He has outright stated he doesn't "believe" in evolution (I put believe in quotes as I'm not sure if one is able to believe or not believe in scientific fact) You're just arguing semantics here, i.e. you take "believe" to mean "believe without sufficient evidence". And even in that sense, there are tons of people who believe "scientific facts" just because they were told so in school, without actually comprehending what any of it means. I put "scientific facts" in quotes because science is about methods, not facts; so while you can certainly call knowledge obtained by the scientific method "scientific facts", it is important to note that this knowledge is often subject to change and updates when additional evidence is observed. In fact this is the greatest advantage of science, that it throws overbord what has become obsolete and embraces that which has proven the most accurate. To say "I believe in evolution" or "I know that evolution is true" in an absolute sense is naïve, because to anyone familiar with the subject it is obvious that the current theory of evolution is an approximation that is not 100% accurate; much like Newtonian physics isn't 100% accurate (but still a mighty fine approximation for most applications). This is the biggest problem with modern education; that it teaches "scientific facts" instead of the scientific method. Most of the people who talk big about "science" today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists are exactly the kind of people that would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. The difference lies only in the environment in which one was raised. While I won't contest faith and the glory of life for whatever reason it came it be, I do agree that scientific fact is indeed a false term and that people should realize that there is a huge difference between scientific theory and fact.
Evolution is a theory in the same way that we talk about the theory of gravity, or the theory of photosynthesis.
Scientific theories are as close as you can get to facts, they're simply called theories because scientists lack the audacity and overwhelming ignorance to call any thought that pops into their minds a 'fact'. That's been the domain of the church for two thousand years now.
|
On September 28 2013 18:14 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 15:42 IronManSC wrote:
So, when I say to Christians that we should stay away from certain scientific matters (I speak in generality here), I'm saying we should stay away from anything that could take the place of God, such as believing in a god of the stars, god of the sun, or god of the wind. And we should stay away from things like evolution, which denies a Creator God and that we came from organisms which evolved into humans overtime when the Bible plainly tells us that we were made from dust in the image of God, and that Eve was made by one of Adam's ribs. While from a scientific/rational perspective evolution and the creation myth are contradictory, the same is not true if you approach the subject with a religious mindset, as in that case there is no reason why humans couldn't be an exception to evolution. In fact, if you read the Genesis under the perspective of evolution, it seems plainly obvious that man is an exception, as God created Adam "in his own image". One of the most common misconceptions about the theory of evolution is that it describes the origin of life, while in fact it only deals with how species are modified (aka evolve) over time and thus form new species. And as far as I know, the Genesis only deals with the creation of animals, not their continued existence, and there are also no dates given, so why would evolution be incompatible with the Genesis? Also I fail to see how evolution could lead people to question God's omnipotence. I find designing a whole stable self-modifying system such as evolution much more impressive than just designing a bunch of species.
And what a great God that would be.
We can't explain why the planets move? That's God's domain. Well, except at some point we learned to understand why they move, so let's take that away from him. No problem, there's more.
Can't explain where life comes to being? Well, let's use God for that.
Oh, there's a couple of very sound theories about that already? Okay, no God then.
So God's domain is the one where he created consciousness from simple life.
Brilliant, let's hope that we don't understand to soon how that happened, so God can have a reason to exist for a couple of decades longer.
|
On October 01 2013 06:56 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 05:27 peacenl wrote:On October 01 2013 00:17 And G wrote:On September 30 2013 23:46 HardlyNever wrote:
He has outright stated he doesn't "believe" in evolution (I put believe in quotes as I'm not sure if one is able to believe or not believe in scientific fact) You're just arguing semantics here, i.e. you take "believe" to mean "believe without sufficient evidence". And even in that sense, there are tons of people who believe "scientific facts" just because they were told so in school, without actually comprehending what any of it means. I put "scientific facts" in quotes because science is about methods, not facts; so while you can certainly call knowledge obtained by the scientific method "scientific facts", it is important to note that this knowledge is often subject to change and updates when additional evidence is observed. In fact this is the greatest advantage of science, that it throws overbord what has become obsolete and embraces that which has proven the most accurate. To say "I believe in evolution" or "I know that evolution is true" in an absolute sense is naïve, because to anyone familiar with the subject it is obvious that the current theory of evolution is an approximation that is not 100% accurate; much like Newtonian physics isn't 100% accurate (but still a mighty fine approximation for most applications). This is the biggest problem with modern education; that it teaches "scientific facts" instead of the scientific method. Most of the people who talk big about "science" today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists are exactly the kind of people that would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. The difference lies only in the environment in which one was raised. While I won't contest faith and the glory of life for whatever reason it came it be, I do agree that scientific fact is indeed a false term and that people should realize that there is a huge difference between scientific theory and fact. Evolution is a theory in the same way that we talk about the theory of gravity, or the theory of photosynthesis. Scientific theories are as close as you can get to facts, they're simply called theories because scientists lack the audacity and overwhelming ignorance to call any thought that pops into their minds a 'fact'. That's been the domain of the church for two thousand years now.
It's called a theory because real scientists are willing to change theories to better fit further observation and experimentation. And they often do have to, so no, theories aren't "close to facts". Some theories have stood for a long time and are unlikely to ever change much (theory of gravitation), whereas other theories regularly change (and change in popularity among the scientific community). An example of this would be the steady state theory and the changes it underwent, and then later the big bang theory became more popular. The general theory of evolution has underwent many changes, such that modern evolutionists hardly uphold the same theory that Darwin first proposed. Perhaps it will eventually reach a stage of consistency, like the theory of gravity. Perhaps it will be superseded by a different theory (resurgence of the stopgap theory of evolution for example?  ).
As a side note, if I recall correctly the reason scientists originally opposed the big bang theory was because it suggested a beginning to the universe, which would require a creation of the universe. In other words, scientists opposed the big bang theory because it seemed to be a religious theory Those were the kind of scientists who were NOT willing to change their theories to better fit further observation and experimentation. Unfortunately, many scientists (and "followers of science", those who never actually "do" science but have a certain "belief" in it) are unwilling to change their ideas unless those in authority first change their own ideas. And happily, many scientists DO change their ideas based on observations and experiments, resulting in scientific progress.
|
On October 01 2013 07:06 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 06:56 SixStrings wrote:On October 01 2013 05:27 peacenl wrote:On October 01 2013 00:17 And G wrote:On September 30 2013 23:46 HardlyNever wrote:
He has outright stated he doesn't "believe" in evolution (I put believe in quotes as I'm not sure if one is able to believe or not believe in scientific fact) You're just arguing semantics here, i.e. you take "believe" to mean "believe without sufficient evidence". And even in that sense, there are tons of people who believe "scientific facts" just because they were told so in school, without actually comprehending what any of it means. I put "scientific facts" in quotes because science is about methods, not facts; so while you can certainly call knowledge obtained by the scientific method "scientific facts", it is important to note that this knowledge is often subject to change and updates when additional evidence is observed. In fact this is the greatest advantage of science, that it throws overbord what has become obsolete and embraces that which has proven the most accurate. To say "I believe in evolution" or "I know that evolution is true" in an absolute sense is naïve, because to anyone familiar with the subject it is obvious that the current theory of evolution is an approximation that is not 100% accurate; much like Newtonian physics isn't 100% accurate (but still a mighty fine approximation for most applications). This is the biggest problem with modern education; that it teaches "scientific facts" instead of the scientific method. Most of the people who talk big about "science" today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists are exactly the kind of people that would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. The difference lies only in the environment in which one was raised. While I won't contest faith and the glory of life for whatever reason it came it be, I do agree that scientific fact is indeed a false term and that people should realize that there is a huge difference between scientific theory and fact. Evolution is a theory in the same way that we talk about the theory of gravity, or the theory of photosynthesis. Scientific theories are as close as you can get to facts, they're simply called theories because scientists lack the audacity and overwhelming ignorance to call any thought that pops into their minds a 'fact'. That's been the domain of the church for two thousand years now. It's called a theory because real scientists are willing to change theories to better fit further observation and experimentation. And they often do have to, so no, theories aren't "close to facts".
I still maintain they are, in the way that 'facts' don't portray the absolute truth, but the closest possible estimation.
|
On October 01 2013 07:12 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 07:06 Birdie wrote:On October 01 2013 06:56 SixStrings wrote:On October 01 2013 05:27 peacenl wrote:On October 01 2013 00:17 And G wrote:On September 30 2013 23:46 HardlyNever wrote:
He has outright stated he doesn't "believe" in evolution (I put believe in quotes as I'm not sure if one is able to believe or not believe in scientific fact) You're just arguing semantics here, i.e. you take "believe" to mean "believe without sufficient evidence". And even in that sense, there are tons of people who believe "scientific facts" just because they were told so in school, without actually comprehending what any of it means. I put "scientific facts" in quotes because science is about methods, not facts; so while you can certainly call knowledge obtained by the scientific method "scientific facts", it is important to note that this knowledge is often subject to change and updates when additional evidence is observed. In fact this is the greatest advantage of science, that it throws overbord what has become obsolete and embraces that which has proven the most accurate. To say "I believe in evolution" or "I know that evolution is true" in an absolute sense is naïve, because to anyone familiar with the subject it is obvious that the current theory of evolution is an approximation that is not 100% accurate; much like Newtonian physics isn't 100% accurate (but still a mighty fine approximation for most applications). This is the biggest problem with modern education; that it teaches "scientific facts" instead of the scientific method. Most of the people who talk big about "science" today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists are exactly the kind of people that would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. The difference lies only in the environment in which one was raised. While I won't contest faith and the glory of life for whatever reason it came it be, I do agree that scientific fact is indeed a false term and that people should realize that there is a huge difference between scientific theory and fact. Evolution is a theory in the same way that we talk about the theory of gravity, or the theory of photosynthesis. Scientific theories are as close as you can get to facts, they're simply called theories because scientists lack the audacity and overwhelming ignorance to call any thought that pops into their minds a 'fact'. That's been the domain of the church for two thousand years now. It's called a theory because real scientists are willing to change theories to better fit further observation and experimentation. And they often do have to, so no, theories aren't "close to facts". I still maintain they are, in the way that 'facts' don't portray the absolute truth, but the closest possible estimation.
Well, facts by definition are absolute truth, hence why the scientific community doesn't deal in facts.
|
On September 30 2013 14:49 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 04:47 sam!zdat wrote:
yeah, I think you are a false christian in a church that does not teach the truth! I think you have been led astray by a satan twisting the words of god! I can say it just as well as you can.
because you fetishize the text and do not take it seriously as a text which demands critical engagement. It is extremely disrespectful to a text which you claim to value. In my eyes, you are an idolator of a dead god who uses their 'faith' as a weapon in the service of arrogance and hate.
I never said anything about 'quote from satan', I said the devil also comes quoting scripture. That's YOU, cquoting a text you do not even make any attempt to understand in its context.
edit: anyway, whatever, take your thread back idolator. If I keep at this I'll say what I REALLY think about you and get myself banned What Jesus says about Satan: "He has always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies" - John 8:44.
I'm sorry, but this exact same thing can be said about priests everywhere.
Be it Muslims or Christians, those who have driven the Abrahamic religions have forever been opposed to truth.
Smartly so, because literally the only justification of their jobs and fields of study (I'm annoyed that bible study is accepted as an academic field whereas reading Marvel comics is regarded a past-time) is an old collection of scriptures that are obvious fabrications that are often directly contradictory.
On September 30 2013 11:09 IronManSC wrote:
Can a skyscraper build itself without human hands and intelligence? I'd be impressed if it could.
Your point being, for something complex to be built, there must be something even greater and more complex to have built it, right? That's great, so you agree that God is impossible, because the only explanation for God would be Meta-God, who in turn would have been created by Meta-Meta-God, creating an indefinite chain of Gods, each more complex than the next. How does that make any sense?
I really respect you for being a sophisticated Christian, however. There's nothing more annoying than Christians who claim the bible to be 100% factual without having read a single page of it.
|
On September 15 2013 17:53 Luthier wrote:
I challenge anyone who is a non-believer to read a Lee Strobel book - any of them - and still tell me they don't at least accept that there is a possibility that God is real.
Of course there is, nobody doubts that.
Atheists know that there is a possibility God exists. It's about the same one that Harry Potter or Spider Man exist, but still there's a possibility.
|
On September 30 2013 15:13 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 15:09 And G wrote:On September 30 2013 15:07 Birdie wrote:
the Bible suggests that the world is only ~6000 years old. I am very sad right now. :-( Why :O if the dates in the Bible are to be taken literally (and there's little reason not to), then Bishop Ussher's chronology of the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology) and all the other estimates generally conclude on a 6000 year old earth.
Except you can't use the Bible as evidence when it itself contains the claims you are trying to support. Scientific evidence from an outside source is needed - most of which happens to contradict the bit of guesswork extrapolated from the Bible.
On October 01 2013 06:52 SixStrings wrote:
You just know Ohana had to be created by a creationist.
God is a mapmaker and we are all living in an extremely sophisticated video game.
Religion solved, debate's over, nothing to do here folks.
|
On October 01 2013 06:56 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 05:27 peacenl wrote:On October 01 2013 00:17 And G wrote:On September 30 2013 23:46 HardlyNever wrote:
He has outright stated he doesn't "believe" in evolution (I put believe in quotes as I'm not sure if one is able to believe or not believe in scientific fact) You're just arguing semantics here, i.e. you take "believe" to mean "believe without sufficient evidence". And even in that sense, there are tons of people who believe "scientific facts" just because they were told so in school, without actually comprehending what any of it means. I put "scientific facts" in quotes because science is about methods, not facts; so while you can certainly call knowledge obtained by the scientific method "scientific facts", it is important to note that this knowledge is often subject to change and updates when additional evidence is observed. In fact this is the greatest advantage of science, that it throws overbord what has become obsolete and embraces that which has proven the most accurate. To say "I believe in evolution" or "I know that evolution is true" in an absolute sense is naïve, because to anyone familiar with the subject it is obvious that the current theory of evolution is an approximation that is not 100% accurate; much like Newtonian physics isn't 100% accurate (but still a mighty fine approximation for most applications). This is the biggest problem with modern education; that it teaches "scientific facts" instead of the scientific method. Most of the people who talk big about "science" today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists are exactly the kind of people that would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. The difference lies only in the environment in which one was raised. While I won't contest faith and the glory of life for whatever reason it came it be, I do agree that scientific fact is indeed a false term and that people should realize that there is a huge difference between scientific theory and fact. Evolution is a theory in the same way that we talk about the theory of gravity, or the theory of photosynthesis. Scientific theories are as close as you can get to facts, they're simply called theories because scientists lack the audacity and overwhelming ignorance to call any thought that pops into their minds a 'fact'. That's been the domain of the church for two thousand years now.
A scientific theory is a system of interconnected statements that can be verified/falsified using the scientific method and is rarely true in an absolute sense. The word "theory" has nothing to with whether something is proven or true, and it has a completely different meaning from "conjecture" or "hypothesis".
Scientific theories are models, and some of them are more accurate than others. Wegener's theory of continental drift is a scientific theory that has been disproven, and everyone knows classical mechanics is an inadequate approximation. Like Birdie said, evolution is still being updated, so saying it is a "fact" as if that implied some sort of ultimate truth is naïve.
On October 01 2013 07:03 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 18:14 And G wrote:On September 28 2013 15:42 IronManSC wrote:
So, when I say to Christians that we should stay away from certain scientific matters (I speak in generality here), I'm saying we should stay away from anything that could take the place of God, such as believing in a god of the stars, god of the sun, or god of the wind. And we should stay away from things like evolution, which denies a Creator God and that we came from organisms which evolved into humans overtime when the Bible plainly tells us that we were made from dust in the image of God, and that Eve was made by one of Adam's ribs. While from a scientific/rational perspective evolution and the creation myth are contradictory, the same is not true if you approach the subject with a religious mindset, as in that case there is no reason why humans couldn't be an exception to evolution. In fact, if you read the Genesis under the perspective of evolution, it seems plainly obvious that man is an exception, as God created Adam "in his own image". One of the most common misconceptions about the theory of evolution is that it describes the origin of life, while in fact it only deals with how species are modified (aka evolve) over time and thus form new species. And as far as I know, the Genesis only deals with the creation of animals, not their continued existence, and there are also no dates given, so why would evolution be incompatible with the Genesis? Also I fail to see how evolution could lead people to question God's omnipotence. I find designing a whole stable self-modifying system such as evolution much more impressive than just designing a bunch of species. And what a great God that would be. We can't explain why the planets move? That's God's domain. Well, except at some point we learned to understand why they move, so let's take that away from him. No problem, there's more. Can't explain where life comes to being? Well, let's use God for that. Oh, there's a couple of very sound theories about that already? Okay, no God then. So God's domain is the one where he created consciousness from simple life. Brilliant, let's hope that we don't understand to soon how that happened, so God can have a reason to exist for a couple of decades longer.
I never said you should use God whenever you can't explain something. I was arguing that from a Christian's perspective, there is little reason not to believe in evolution, as there is nothing in the bible that contradicts it. I mean, even Christians (except fundamentalist creationists) don't dismiss the star formation theory on the basis of the bible attributing the creation of stars to God, right? So why should the creation of species be any different?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
