Biblical literalism correlates with anti-science

[River Jordan]

I won't waste my time explaining what you already know but want to act like an airhead.

IOW, you're going to lob an insult and run away hoping everyone will forget that you made an accusation that you couldn't back up. Seen it.... <_<

 

[River Jordan]

You said people get the impression that Christians have a problem with science as if you are on the outside looking in.

No, it's based on the data showing that one of the factors in the decline of Christianity in the US is that our faith is seen as "hostile to science". Your comments and posts further that impression.

So, because you are a Christian, which group would you say doesnt have a problem with science (since obviously you dont believe you have a problem with it)?

Non-fundamentalists.

From our conversations thus far, I would conclude your position is:

1) Christians that believe the OT and NT are fact-based and the literature is based on actual events in history are anti-reason & science: i.e. creation account; commands claimed to be from God are, in fact, from God; miraculous plagues, raising the dead, the resurrection of Jesus, etc.

Nope. I have no problem with Christians saying they read the Genesis accounts as literal history and scientific explanations for creation. That's fine. What irks me is when the same folks then feel compelled to start arguing against science, and in doing so make some of the (quite honestly) stupidest arguments I've ever seen. Just say that you read Genesis literally and be done with it. There's absolutely no need to start trying to argue against genetics, paleontology, biology, etc., especially when you know almost nothing about them! Why is that so hard to do?

2) Christians that believe the literature throughout the Bible is primarily parabolic and metaphorical...there are no miracles are rational, but aren't properly Christian.

I don't go around saying who is and isn't a Christian. That seems to be the arena of fundamentalists.

3) Christians that believe the OT is predominately filled with literary devices and the commands for war from God, creation of man and woman, and so forth are not to be understood historically, however, the NT accounts of the miracles of the Apostles and the resurrection of Jesus are fact-laden and historical. These are the Christians that are both Christian and somehow also qualify as lovers of science.

Again, I don't go around declaring who is or isn't a Christian.

I think the issue I am having here is that you feel Christians who hold to the Scriptures as primarily fact-based are consequently non-rational and anti-science.

Nope. I believe it's the Christians who go around making stupid arguments in subjects they know nothing about and/or say things like "Im sure we can manage to build computers and bridges....even if we stop teaching kids that they came from monkeys via billions of years of random processes" are non-rational and anti-science.

You believe the creation account is simply communicating literary ideas and is not meant to be taken as fact-based. However, when you flip to the NT, you claim that the resurrection really happened and Jesus ascended to heaven. For someone who claims to be a lover of science and reason, you seem to be cherry-picking here.

We've been over this.

Apparently, we know scientifically that evolution is a fact and that man came from single-cell organisms. To argue the contrary is to be anti-science, believe in a god-of-the-gaps and to make a fool of one's self before the scientific community. However, you espouse a virgin birth, miracles, spiritual forces, the resurrection of the dead and the ascension of Jesus into the heavens. How does this not make you, likewise, anti-science and non-rationale?

Because in advocating the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I don't then turn that into attacking medical science, referring to physicians as anti-God atheists, or an excuse to make outrageously stupid arguments.

I just find it amazing that you can be so mean-spirited and critical to those "Christians" out there that are so contrary to reason and science in Genesis, while you maintain similar foolish and anti-rationale views yourself, just in other parts of the Bible. Apparently your belief in miracles and resurrections are not the stuff of fairy tales and hocus pocus, but believing the OT is fact-laden is?

Because I don't use my belief in the resurrection as a jumping off point to attack medical science or doctors. Creationists OTOH use their belief in a literal Genesis as a jumping off point to attack the earth and life sciences and scientists. Understand the difference now?

Give me a break. I dont agree with a lot of Christians out there and their views on Genesis and other biblical texts. But I dont pit myself against them and claim that they are fools who oppose reason and are a laughing stock to the scientific community.

If you have a problem with being thought of as a laughing stock by scientists, stop trying to argue against fields of science that you don't know anything about. IOW, if you don't like being called stupid, stop saying stupid things.

We all believe in the unscientific and miraculous (at least I believe this is essential for a legitimate Christian). But apparently you feel that its okay to mock and deride those who see the miraculous extending back into Genesis 1-2, while you can somehow maintain scientific integrity by claiming miracles in the Gospels. I find this to be a ridiculous double-standard.

Hopefully after reading this post you now understand your error.

 

[River Jordan]

I agree. It would be an exercise in futility, which is why she is on my ignore list.

I wonder if Stan appreciates just how revealing it is that he feels the need to keep telling everyone he is ignoring me? :lol:

 

[Wormwood]

No, it's based on the data showing that one of the factors in the decline of Christianity in the US is that our faith is seen as "hostile to science". Your comments and posts further that impression.

We both agree that science is a good thing. However, "hostile to science" can mean a host of different things. Do you want your kids being taught publicly that miracles are non-scientific and therefore the Bible is fairy tales? I mean, miracles, strictly speaking, are hostile to science as they defy natural law. Again, you are cherry picking. You want to agree that a fact-based approach to Genesis is "hostile to science" if such a person does not want their child taught a theory of evolution. Yet, its not "hostile to science" to argue that teachers should not teach kids that the Bible is fairy tales since it incorporates miracles and spiritual forces? I don't see your logic here.

Non-fundamentalists.

Do you even know what the traditional beliefs where that were being defended in The Fundamentals? As Inigo Montoya said, "I do not think that word means what you think it means."

1. inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible (this does not mandate viewing Genesis as a scientific account)
2. the virgin birth of Jesus Christ
3. his substitutionary atonement
4. his bodily resurrection
5. his visible second coming
other items that were sometimes included were the deity of Christ and his miracle working power.

So which of these views do you feel is so horrible as to be up for ridicule?

I don't go around saying who is and isn't a Christian. That seems to be the arena of fundamentalists.

Oh come on now. That's like saying, "I don't go around saying who is and isn't a scientist." If the word "Christian" doesn't mean anything, why use it? Clearly you mean something when you use the word.

Nope. I believe it's the Christians who go around making stupid arguments in subjects they know nothing about and/or say things like "Im sure we can manage to build computers and bridges....even if we stop teaching kids that they came from monkeys via billions of years of random processes" are non-rational and anti-science.

As I have pointed out, one can be a creationist and still do science, work in a lab and advance technology. You are creating faulty dichotomies. You know, the Bible never says we must believe in the prevailing technology of our day to be saved. It does say we must love one another and trust in the Word of God. You always seem so angry, harsh and mean-spirited on here. I have never seen you encourage or uplift anyone. I think you are fighting the wrong battles. There are more important things. This isn't worth attacking people or maligning Christians over.

Because in advocating the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I don't then turn that into attacking medical science, referring to physicians as anti-God atheists, or an excuse to make outrageously stupid arguments.

What I am desperately trying to help you see is that most Christians are not "attacking" science. Yes, there are some who want to make Genesis a science textbook. Yet that is a very minute group. Most "creationists" agree with you on all your claims about the cell, information, adaptation, etc. Their argument is really no different your argument on the resurrection. You claim, "yes, the resurrection happened, but it was a miracle and not the normal process of things." Likewise, these creationists say, "Yes, all the things we learn about life and the cell and so forth are true. However, we believe a miracle kicked it all off and all various forms of life began as kinds with very similar designs and the ability to adapt and evolve into a wide variety of forms in accordance with that kind." There is no denial of science here. It is embracing the science while maintaining a belief in the possibility that a miracle took place and that things started in a certain way with a certain appearance. The same is true with the flood. Is a worldwide flood rational? Does it fit what we see everyday? Are there scientific difficulties with that dramatic of a rain and how Noah could have constructed a boat that large with his technology at the time? Sure. But its not "anti-science" any more than believing Jesus came back from the dead, or cast demons out of people. Neither match what we learn from science and both take faith to accept. We accept it because the Bible states it. If you want to believe the Bible is merely using literary devices and is not historically accurate in relation to the flood, but is in relation to the resurrection of Jesus, fine. But how can you attack someone who accepts the flood in the same way you accept the resurrection?

If you have a problem with being thought of as a laughing stock by scientists, stop trying to argue against fields of science that you don't know anything about. IOW, if you don't like being called stupid, stop saying stupid things.

One cannot believe the Bible and not believe in things that are "stupid" as they would be understood in a particular scientific field or lab. I just find it ironic that you want to call a Christian stupid for believing God performed a miracle in the creation of man, whereas your view of a resurrection and spiritual forces are considered just as "stupid" by much of the scientific community. I don't care what the scientific community believes about me. I believe dead people can come back to life, I believe in angels and demons, and I believe in miracles. Most importantly, I believe sin is a cancer to this world and a peasant from Galilee was nailed to a Roman cross 2,000 years ago and that act had the power to cleanse me of my sin and the sins of anyone who calls on him. Yes, its "stupid" as most would define the word. So if you are worried about what the scientific community thinks about you, or other Christians, you should probably reconsider your own views rather than isolating the book of Genesis and our understanding of origins as the only area for critique.

“Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you. We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death. Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” (1 John 3:13–15, ESV)

 

[River Jordan]

Wormwood,

Let me reiterate because apparently I didn't make my point clearly enough.

You want to agree that a fact-based approach to Genesis is "hostile to science" if such a person does not want their child taught a theory of evolution. Yet, its not "hostile to science" to argue that teachers should not teach kids that the Bible is fairy tales since it incorporates miracles and spiritual forces? I don't see your logic here.

The reason you don't see the logic is because you are continuing to repeat the same error I tried to point out in my last post. So again...

1) Christians who believe in a young earth, young universe, global flood, resurrection, virgin birth, or any other miraculous event described in scripture are not anti-science or attacking science.

Are we clear on that?

2) Christians who believe in a young earth, young universe, and global flood who use those beliefs as jumping off points to start making stupid arguments like "no transitional fossils", "no new genetic information", "no positive mutations", "there was a vapor canopy", "Noah took eggs on the ark", and such are anti-science and attacking science. Christians who argue that evolution = atheism, claim that scientists can't be trusted, accuse scientists of being anti-God, accuse scientists of fudging data, and such are anti-science and attacking science. Christians who lobby school boards to eliminate evolution from the curriculum, work to weaken state science standards, inject creationism into science classes, and alter science textbooks to suit their religious beliefs are anti-science and attacking science.

Do you understand and appreciate the difference between #1 and #2? If you don't, then say so and I guess I'll try again.

 

[River Jordan]

To put it more succinctly, there's a difference between "I believe the earth is 6,000 years old because that's what scripture teaches" and "I believe the earth is 6,000 years old because that's what scripture teaches, and those atheist, God-hating, lying scientists with their fake data and anti-Christ secular agenda will never convince me".

If you don't understand the difference, re-read the above and think about it some more.

 

[Wormwood]

2) Christians who believe in a young earth, young universe, and global flood who use those beliefs as jumping off points to start making stupid arguments like "no transitional fossils", "no new genetic information", "no positive mutations", "there was a vapor canopy", "Noah took eggs on the ark", and such are anti-science and attacking science.

You see, here is where I think you are exaggerating your claims. Many scientists believe we have enough scientific information in the fossil record to assume single-cell organisms evolved into humans. However, this is not an established fact and there are scientists that freely admit that the transitions are not at clear as one would expect. Thus, punctuated equilibrium and other theories have been developed to explain away the lack of connections. So, I don't see this as "anti-science" so much as resisting the effort to fill in the transitional gaps due to biblical presuppositions.

We have covered the "no new genetic information" ad nauseum. You and I both know that "genetic information" is a real thing and one does not move from one creature to another simply by scrambling up the genetic sequences a bit. More advanced forms of life have much more complex sequences in their genetic coding and those codes create highly detailed functions that are not likely to just happen and form fully functional, highly purposeful cells and organs as a result. Apparently this is an area where we will simply have to agree to disagree. Yet I still don't see this as "attacking science" ....if anything it is a question of mathematical odds and the likelihood of this specified information developing through random mutations. No one is denying the facts, they just have different opinions of where those facts lead. Again, not "attacking science." No one is denying the genetic code and how cells are formed.

Im not sure exactly what your point is regarding the vapor canopy. I assume is has to do with the flood. I think what everyone agrees upon is that the earth was quite different in the past. We have fossils of dragons flies with wing spans of over two feet in length. Clearly dinosaurs and other enormous animals roamed the earth such that the conditions were quite different than they are now. Regarding the dragonflies and differing conditions in world of the past a Wikipedia article states,

Controversy has prevailed as to how insects of the Carboniferous period were able to grow so large. The way oxygen is diffused through the insect's body via its tracheal breathing system puts an upper limit on body size, which prehistoric insects seem to have well exceeded. It was originally proposed (Harlé & Harlé, 1911) that Meganeura was able to fly only because the atmosphere at that time contained more oxygen than the present 20%. This hypothesis was dismissed by fellow scientists, but has found approval more recently through further study into the relationship between gigantism and oxygen availability.[

Certainly, creationists that are attempting to provide explanations about how the flood could have occurred are doing so with biblical presuppositions. No one is denying that. Last I checked, I don't recall any creationist demanding that the vapor canopy, greenhouse effects, or various other theory of the flood be taught in science textbooks. I guess my point is that fossils show that the world was vastly different in the past and we don't really understand exactly how or why. If Christians want to use this information to create theories about vapor canopies, greenhouse effects and how that could explain Biblical teachings about people living for 900 years or a worldwide flood occurring in a short period of time, whats the problem? Again, I don't think anyone is demanding these theories be taught in the public schools or universities.

"I believe the earth is 6,000 years old because that's what scripture teaches, and those atheist, God-hating, lying scientists with their fake data and anti-Christ secular agenda will never convince me".

Like I said, there are some Christians who hold this position, but it is a minority. You act as if this is the official Christian position in many of your statements. I think many Christians are defensive because they are being told they are not scientific or hate science if they disagree with some of the theories of evolution proposed today. Its like the options are, agree with my theory, and if you dont, youre a bible-thumping, ignorant, anti-science zealot. I dont think those should be the only two options in a community that is supposed to thrive on varying opinions and theories. Maybe they are wrong in their disagreement, maybe they aren't. Yet disagreeing with some scientists due to both scientific and biblical rationale does not make one a hater of science. Just because someone disagrees with you or the theory of evolution because they hold to a fact-based view of Genesis does not mean they cannot have scientific reasons for doing so as well...or that they are "anti-science" as your title argues.

 

[River Jordan]

Wormwood,

At least it looks like I've gotten my point across. You do understand the difference between believing in things like a young earth, and believing in a young earth and attacking science and making stupid arguments against science.

Now it seems like your response is to say "we just look at the data differently and ask questions....what's wrong with that". The problem there is twofold. First, the creationists on this board aren't as benign as you make it seem. Here are a few statements I've saved since I started posting here...

The purpose of evolution now becomes crystal clear. It is a belief system that encourages you to live as you please as you are your own god.

the theory of evolution has all the attributes of a religion ... it is a "belief system"

Evolution is hence a belief system. The only evidence of its existence is in a dictionary.

I believe evolution is a religion not science .it takes a lot of faith in Darwin's theory to believe in evolution

the evolutionist has become like a proud little god who becomes furious every time anyone suggests there is a Big God who made everything

in this country they can not make you accept the false religion of evolution to study science

People who become followers of evolution do not become non-religious they become religious. They believe in "god" named Chance, his "prophet" Darving and "holy book" Origin of Species. It takes totally blind religious faith to believe in Evolution.

You have stepped away from the microscope and become little gods who think you can explain everything

A belief system that reeks of satanism = pride / natural selection / living this one life to the maximum... so sin all you want.

Here we see that evolution is an unsupported belief system. Not exactly "just asking questions" or "looking at the data differently" is it? To continue...

those who are involved in peer review are taught beforehand by others what "interpretation" is correct and which is incorrect

I am concerned for people who are being deceived by evolutionists.

These kinds of things are never discussed openly in scientific journals because they don't fit in with the preferred paradigm.

secondly, scientists are not going to identify layers containing dinosaur fossils as being the same layer were human remains are found

The only reason that you claim it "looks" old is because you have been indoctrinated to believe it is.

Uniformitarianism in its turn was popularized by Charles Lyell, who clearly had an anti-biblical, anti-christian agenda

Oh, you mean the "scientific journals" that reject any supernatural explanations for anything, including your OWN beliefs? Sure! Anything that doesn't conform to evolution is ATTACKED, not accepted into journals.

I don't care what you have done. You have already been programmed to accept what is "valid" and what is "invalid"

Evolutionists have had 150 years to prove their claims and they still have nothing substantial.

Here we see Christians publicly expressing that science and the scientific community are not trustworthy, have an ant-Christian agenda, and engage in dishonest indoctrination. To continue...

Evolution is an atheists belief that will strangle / kill your Christianity

Natural selection is 100% against the nature of God and 100% in favour of the devil's nature.

Evolution = atheist god of the gaps

Evolution is a sick child that atheists are forcing science to carry

I am telling you that evolution kills scripture.

Evolution = atheism...we've been over this. To conclude...

Man made theories constantly change none of them are grounded because they are without understanding and so they will continue to be jostled too and fro

If the Bible is not trustworthy like It says It is, then what do we believe? The words of a heathen scientist?

If you think that science is the main or only thing driving them to their conclusions, you are in the same denial that they are.

Ungodly scientists...Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth

Why not research what God has said and revealed? Why should I trust biased research?

Scientists are people too. They have bills to pay. They will say what, whoever signs their paychecks wants them to say.

Again we see consistent thought that scientists are ungodly, untrustworthy, and pushing some sort of agenda. And finally we get to my favorite...

science is demonic. Yessir it is.

Now you tell me, would you read all that in a Christian forum and come away thinking Christians anything but anti-science? What if someone like me wasn't even allowed here? What if my posts weren't here to counter all that? You don't have to wonder, just go to any restricted fundamentalist Christian forum and this sort of anti-science rhetoric is all over the place.

But that's only half the problem It's not just the anti-science attitude, it's also the incredibly ridiculous arguments some of you put forth in these discussions. You touched on it in your post...

We have covered the "no new genetic information" ad nauseum. You and I both know that "genetic information" is a real thing and one does not move from one creature to another simply by scrambling up the genetic sequences a bit. More advanced forms of life have much more complex sequences in their genetic coding and those codes create highly detailed functions that are not likely to just happen and form fully functional, highly purposeful cells and organs as a result. Apparently this is an area where we will simply have to agree to disagree. Yet I still don't see this as "attacking science" ....if anything it is a question of mathematical odds and the likelihood of this specified information developing through random mutations. No one is denying the facts, they just have different opinions of where those facts lead. Again, not "attacking science." No one is denying the genetic code and how cells are formed.

Yep, we covered it all right....and it took days and days to get you to even tell me what "genetic information" is! And then when you agreed that genetic information is functional nucleotide sequences, and I showed you examples of observed evolution of new functional nucleotide sequences, you scrambled, waved your arms, and did everything in your power to not have to admit that according to what you'd agreed to, evolution does indeed generate new genetic information. And now here you are once again acting like it's still a valid argument!

Sorry Wormwood, that's just pathetic behavior that when expressed publicly and in the context of Christianity, makes our faith look very bad. If you're going to parrot such ridiculous arguments from creationist organizations, then you'd better own it, even when it goes bad. Anything less just isn't honest.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

River,

Not too bad a post for once.

Let me try to imitate.
Scientists aren't God-hating reprobates when they claim that the universe is all there is, and there's just not enough evidence to convince me of theism, and the major holes that still remain in scientific naturalism philosophy will one day be answered and we look forward to that day. But until then it's interesting to discuss metaphysical/physical reality with theists and we wholly support their right to their opinion in the academic arena

They become God-hating zealots when they claim nonsense like:
Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself.
I hate YE creationists.
Religion is something you can do on weekends but keep it out of everyday life.
There are an infinite number of transitional fossils which clearly show macroevolution.
God is a murderous infantile ethnic cleanser
Creationists are child abusers.
If you believe the Bible you cannot do science.
Creationists should be quiet because they use computers don't they.
Watch this video as it proves (insert your view here)
Anything about Punctuated Equilibrium.
Anything about the multiverse.
Anything that Lawrence Krauss says.
Anything about objective moral values and duties not existing.
Anything about Jesus never really existing.

 

[River Jordan]

Let me try to imitate.
Scientists aren't God-hating reprobates when they claim that the universe is all there is, and there's just not enough evidence to convince me of theism,

Those are personal, metaphysical statements that have nothing to do with science. So your criticism of those statements apply to everyone, and there's no reason to single out scientists.

and the major holes that still remain in scientific naturalism philosophy will one day be answered

That statement doesn't make sense.

But until then it's interesting to discuss metaphysical/physical reality with theists and we wholly support their right to their opinion in the academic arena

Ok.

They become God-hating zealots when they claim nonsense like:

Let's divide these into a couple of categories...

Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself.

There are an infinite number of transitional fossils which clearly show macroevolution.

Anything about Punctuated Equilibrium.

Anything about the multiverse.

These are roughly valid scientific statements (although no one says there are infinite transitional fossils...that's a straw man of your own making). The science behind the universe is mostly about mathematical models, and punct. eq. is about different modes of speciation. Just because you don't like those things, that doesn't mean when scientists talk about them they're hating on you.

I hate YE creationists.
Religion is something you can do on weekends but keep it out of everyday life.
God is a murderous infantile ethnic cleanser
Creationists are child abusers.
If you believe the Bible you cannot do science.
Creationists should be quiet because they use computers don't they.
Anything about objective moral values and duties not existing.
Anything about Jesus never really existing.

I agree....anyone who says those things has a definite agenda.

Watch this video as it proves (insert your view here)

Doesn't that apply to everyone?

Anything that Lawrence Krauss says.

Hilarious.

 

[KingJ]

Evolution is hence a belief system. The only evidence of its existence is in a dictionary.

River, as always you seem to think evolution has something to do with science.

But anyways, thanks for sharing River. The above is a classic statement that should be framed don't you think?

In post # 148 you question honesty. Well this is honesty my dear:


[SIZE=medium]One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'." Dr Collin Paterson. Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History.[/SIZE]

 

[aspen]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

 

[Wormwood]

Now it seems like your response is to say "we just look at the data differently and ask questions....what's wrong with that". The problem there is twofold. First, the creationists on this board aren't as benign as you make it seem.

I hardly think the voices on this board are an accurate reflection of Christianity as a whole...especially on this issue.

Here we see Christians publicly expressing that science and the scientific community are not trustworthy, have an ant-Christian agenda, and engage in dishonest indoctrination.

Well, I don't think the debates and conflicts in this area from either side are always benign. You should recognize that there is a lot of garbage coming from the other side as well. Have you ever seen Hitchens or Dawkins debate? I have a local biology professor at a university where I serve as an adjunct who regularly writes scathing opinion articles about Christianity as a whole. Point being, both sides can paint with a broad brush and can tend to be quite misguided in these discussions. Dawkins believes that life was seeded here by aliens and he is celebrated in the scientific community. Yet the view that a common Creator established life according to kinds makes someone an opposition to science and observation? smh

Now you tell me, would you read all that in a Christian forum and come away thinking Christians anything but anti-science? What if someone like me wasn't even allowed here? What if my posts weren't here to counter all that?

Im sure the entire scientific community would be burning at stakes if you weren't here to right the ship. Come on now...

And then when you agreed that genetic information is functional nucleotide sequences

You make it sound like you convinced me of this...

you scrambled, waved your arms, and did everything in your power to not have to admit that according to what you'd agreed to, evolution does indeed generate new genetic information. And now here you are once again acting like it's still a valid argument!

You see, the problem here is that you only see what you want to see. That is not how our conversation took place and that was not the point I was making. This is why I often just do not engage you. You are constantly missing my point, wildly exaggerating, or continue to beat straw men and act like you are proving something. Sometimes I think you read what you presume I am going to say and never actually read what I wrote.

Anyway, the point is, you are making unjustified blanket statements about Christians being all "anti-science" unless they hold to your specific hermeneutics. You smear millions of people who believe the fundamentals I listed previously as if they are all witch hunting fools (which you never answered which one of those points make the "fundies" so horrible). And you never offer any concessions or encouragement to other brothers or sisters that disagree with you. Someone may be wrong, but still have strong faith. I think the Bible teaches us that strong faith is more important to God than being right on a topic. There is a reason Jepthah is in the "Hall of Faith" in Hebrews 11.

 

[KingJ]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

Sounds to me like some behind the scenes collusion took place.

 

[marksman]

River, as always you seem to think evolution has something to do with science.

But anyways, thanks for sharing River. The above is a classic statement that should be framed don't you think?

In post # 148 you question honesty. Well this is honesty my dear:


[SIZE=medium]One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'." Dr Collin Paterson. Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History.[/SIZE]

Thankyou for that bit of information KingJ. I agree with you that when push comes to shove, evolutionists are found wanting. I have just watched two programmes on TV where Dawkins set out to prove that evolution is true and science answers everything. To put it mildly, he was PATHETIC. All he did was prove that he didn't know what he was talking about. According to him there is nothing wrong with sexual lust so rape is OK. There is no such thing as morals but it is wrong to kill an animal and so on and so on. I am so glad I am not an atheist.

He interviewed a black american who ran a school for disadvantaged black kids and Dawkins admitted he was succeeding in what he was doing. And what was that? He taught them morals like honesty, truth, respect and so on which meant he was keeping them off the street and going into drugs and crime.

However, Dawkins didn't like the idea that he was imposing his morals on the kids and not letting them think for themselves. Doh!

 

[River Jordan]

I hardly think the voices on this board are an accurate reflection of Christianity as a whole...especially on this issue.

So you disagree with those statements?

Well, I don't think the debates and conflicts in this area from either side are always benign. You should recognize that there is a lot of garbage coming from the other side as well.

I agree, and it's nice to see you recognize that the statements I quoted from this forum are garbage.

Yet the view that a common Creator established life according to kinds makes someone an opposition to science and observation? smh

Please try and remember what we've already covered. To repeat myself:

To put it more succinctly, there's a difference between "I believe the earth is 6,000 years old because that's what scripture teaches" and "I believe the earth is 6,000 years old because that's what scripture teaches, and those atheist, God-hating, lying scientists with their fake data and anti-Christ secular agenda will never convince me".

If you don't understand the difference, re-read the above and think about it some more.

Im sure the entire scientific community would be burning at stakes if you weren't here to right the ship. Come on now...

Hyperbole aside, I'm encouraged to see you appreciate the point.

You make it sound like you convinced me of this...

Again, try and remember what we've already covered. It's just a matter of going back and looking at our discussion.

I said: "So just to be clear, you're saying nucleotide sequences that are functional are "complex, specified DNA information", correct?"

You answered: "Yes. The information creates (among other things) complex, three-dimensional proteins and other molecules that uniquely fit other complex molecule forms to cause specific reactions or build specific structures in the cell."

So yeah, you agreed Wormwood....you agreed that that genetic information is functional nucleotide sequences.

You see, the problem here is that you only see what you want to see. That is not how our conversation took place and that was not the point I was making.

Obviously (it's a matter of record), the problem is your memory of what we've covered and agreed to is questionable at best.

This is why I often just do not engage you.

You should be really embarrassed right now. I've just shown where the conversation was as I described, and here you are acting like this to me? Oops.

Sometimes I think you read what you presume I am going to say and never actually read what I wrote.

Given that my description is clearly the accurate version, and yours is the opposite, it's apparent that I do read what you write, whereas you write it and then forget it.

Anyway, the point is, you are making unjustified blanket statements about Christians being all "anti-science" unless they hold to your specific hermeneutics. You smear millions of people who believe the fundamentals I listed previously as if they are all witch hunting fools (which you never answered which one of those points make the "fundies" so horrible).

Nope. To repeat myself yet again:

To put it more succinctly, there's a difference between "I believe the earth is 6,000 years old because that's what scripture teaches" and "I believe the earth is 6,000 years old because that's what scripture teaches, and those atheist, God-hating, lying scientists with their fake data and anti-Christ secular agenda will never convince me".

If you don't understand the difference, re-read the above and think about it some more.

 

[River Jordan]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

Well, the ridiculous logic behind the thinking that quotes are what matters on scientific issues aside, don't expect the creationists here to acknowledge the error of blindly copying quotes from dishonest creationist sources. Some people value loyalty and tribalism over accuracy and objectivity....that's just human nature.

 

[aspen]

True

Well, the ridiculous logic behind the thinking that quotes are what matters on scientific issues aside, don't expect the creationists here to acknowledge the error of blindly copying quotes from dishonest creationist sources. Some people value loyalty and tribalism over accuracy and objectivity....that's just human nature.

It is a sad truth

It is also sad that if we invoke Pascal and modify his wager.......I am wrong about science and my method of interpreting scripture, God and I will have a good chuckle someday when I get to Heaven; I fear that if literalists discover that the Bible happens to containing inaccuracies or that the authors of the Bible were influenced by their culture or didn't have unlimited knowledge about boats and floods and 6 day creations, they will chuck out the whole Bible or Christianity itself.

 

[Wormwood]

So you disagree with those statements?

I disagree with many of the statements made on here on this issue and several you listed, yes. More importantly, I recognize that there is a lot of gray area on this issue and that everyone should speak to this issue with a great deal of humility and acceptance of others. This is not a hill worth dying on and I am very open to the possibility that my particular take on the issue could be off in varying degrees. I think any Christian who demands everyone believes the world is exactly 6,000 years old or doesn't believe the Bible...or that we KNOW all life came from single celled organisms or you are a foolish fundamentalist who misuses the Bible and opposes science are both in error. This is a debatable matter, and as such, we should approach each other with grace and love...willing to learn and able to disagree without being mean-spirited or arrogant. The most important issue is not how life adapted/evolved through history, but whether or not our lives are currently fully surrendered to Jesus Christ and his word.

To put it more succinctly, there's a difference between "I believe the earth is 6,000 years old because that's what scripture teaches" and "I believe the earth is 6,000 years old because that's what scripture teaches, and those atheist, God-hating, lying scientists with their fake data and anti-Christ secular agenda will never convince me".

As I mentioned above, I also disagree with the approach of the second comment. I am simply asking you to be more balanced. It seems you only see the critical nature in those who take this approach with Genesis, but do not see this type of critical nature on the other side of the aisle. That has been my point all along....both sides are guilty of demonizing the other, not just the "fundamentalists" (although I think this term is horribly misused). Admittedly, I am more accepting of the Christian clinging to their Bible, tooth and nail...even if I disagree with their hermeneutics. I understand their fears and concerns. We live in a culture that has gone from seeing public school and the sciences as a means of exploring and glorifying God to expelling Bibles, divorcing "religious" thought from "secular" life and throwing itself headlong into all kinds of immorality that, 60 years ago, would have been unthinkable. So, yes, I think we should be a little more understanding of those who feel that their families and their faith are being undermined....even if their response and hermeneutics are not always appropriate. Yes, Christians attack science in ways that are ignorant of the real issues. Yet, its also true that schools and professors attack Christianity and undermine students faith on a daily basis. I know. I have attended multiple secular schools, worked with college students for years and have taught at a secular university. I find it despicable that 50 year old professors will attack and undermine the faith of 18 year old students on a regular basis in their classes. Only 25% of Christian college students graduate with their faith. Don't tell me that there is only one side to blame here...and if the question we are asking is: Are professional intellectuals being impeded and undermined by Christians or are Christians being impeded and undermined by professional intellectuals, I think the evidence leans overwhelmingly to the latter.

You should be really embarrassed right now. I've just shown where the conversation was as I described, and here you are acting like this to me? Oops.

I am talking about the general tone of your conversations and why I have regularly backed away or refused to engage you in conversation as of late. I don't understand what you are saying here. This is a personal reflection, not referring to a specific instance.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Condescension thy name is River.