Biblical literalism correlates with anti-science

[JimParker]

Now if ONLY they could use that same mathematical logic on the odds / number of missing links at every stage of human evolution............................................

The whole time line from the big bang is ridiculous. Agreed?

No. I do not agree.

I have no reason to challenge the conclusion that the universe is about 13.5 billion years old.

 

[KingJ]

No. I do not agree.

I have no reason to challenge the conclusion that the universe is about 13.5 billion years old.

So, you are ok with believing we come from flatworms a measly 550 million years? When the odds of winning / successful dna molecules forming / a successful accident are as you said 10-80.

 

[JimParker]

I deleted this post to you because I saw / thought I may be making assumptions about your belief.

Just to clarify...you believe in old mankind and old earth? Or young mankind old earth?

Old and old.

I see no reason to reject the conclusions of astrophysicists/astronomers that the universe is about 13.5 billion years old. I am not versed in the manner by which the 4 billion year age of the earth was arrived.

Neither do I have a basis to challenge the work of archaeologists who have discovered cities (the work of "civilized man") which were built 10 to 12 thousand years ago. And city-building would come a significant time after hunter/gather types of communities.

If you are building a time-line based on the genealogies of Genesis then you are using the Bible to accomplish something for which it was not intended.

 

[River Jordan]

However, they do insist on pretending that they know by talking about serendipitous combining of amino acids in the so-called "primordial soup" giving rise to living molecules. (One biologist put the possibility of a single DNA molecule forming by happy accident at 10-80. Wining the lottery is only 1.75-8; you're more likely to be struck by an asteroid.

FYI, that's a pretty terrible argument for a number of reasons. The main reason is that the calculations are based on molecules forming by random chance, when in reality we know for a fact that chemistry is entirely non-random.

 

[River Jordan]

Believing the opposition is always wrong is naivety and stupidity.

And blindly quoting from sources you trust only because they're Christian and tickling your ear with what you want to hear is....well....you know.

 

[JimParker]

So, you are ok with believing we come from flatworms a measly 550 million years? When the odds of winning / successful dna molecules forming / a successful accident are as you said 10-80.

Why would I be OK with man coming from flatworms????

There is good, verifiable, data on which to base the age of the universe at 13.5 billion years. (Google "how do we calculate the age of the universe")

The Theory of Evolution, in its current state, is useful in understanding the development of new species in nature (creation.) It is particularly useful in the study of bacteria and viruses which constantly mutate into new strains and demonstrate the ability of single celled life forms to adapt to our assaults upon them with antibiotics.

But, being science (the study of creation) it is not of any use whatsoever in addressing the manner in which God (who is not part of creation) operates.

 

[JimParker]

FYI, that's a pretty terrible argument for a number of reasons. The main reason is that the calculations are based on molecules forming by random chance, when in reality we know for a fact that chemistry is entirely non-random.

There are thousands of amino acids in a DNA strand. Those amino acids are categorized as "left rotating" and "right rotating" based on the rotation of a plane of polarized light directed through them. The rotation is determined by the arrangement of atoms in the molecules.

Both varieties of the amino acid molecules will naturally form strands. To be "live", the strand can only contain left rotating molecules. If there is a single right rotating molecule in the strand it is not useful for life. Since both types of molecule are readily available, they naturally unite randomly.

That is basis on which I understand the 10 to the minus 80 number is based.

 

[River Jordan]

Jim,

FYI, I'm a biologist so I am familiar with chirality. If you have a link to how that number was calculated, it might help clear things up.

 

[KingJ]

Convert you to what? Aren't you already a Christian?

1. God does everything HE wants, whenever HE wants, and in whatever manner HE wants and He doesn't need you to understand. The most recent archaeological finds are of cities that are about 10,000 years old which indicates that man, whom God created, is even older.

2. That question doesn't make sense. I have never suggested that Adam's father was a monkey or that man's intelligence is "evolving." Man's knowledge and understanding of the universe is growing but knowledge and understanding are not the same as intelligence.

3. That doesn't make sense either. Man (Adam) chose to sin and sin entered the world. Natural selection has nothing to do with man's free will choice to attempt to be a god through knowledge rather than to be united to The One God.

4. I see absolutely no reason to challenge the Biblical teaching that God created everything and that man is unique in being the only creature made in God's image and likeness.

5. I see absolutely no reason to believe that anything happened by random chance without the direction of the will of God.

6. Are you proposing that I believe the universe to be only about 6000 years old?

7. Are you proposing that the Bible is a book of natural history rather than the revelation of God to man?

1. Well 10k is almost acceptable. The problem I have is with 30k or 300k. Does it make sense to you that God not interact at all with mankind for so many years? God was ok with leaving intelligent man to their own devices? Why was there not earlier recorded accounts of Noah type catastrophes passed down? You can't just say ''God can do whatever He wants''. That is a cop out. Scripture is clear that God has interacted and cared about intelligent man from day 1. The lineage of Adam is also well recorded in scripture.

2. Why is mankind accountable for sin and in need of a Savior if not for intelligence? As you have said, He was planned before the foundations of the earth.

3. As I asked on the other thread... So you don't see natural selection as evil? Can you explain how selfishness and brutality are characteristics of a good and loving God.

4. But by agreeing with evolution you are. How is a MONKEY created in the image of God?

5. That is funny that you believe that. Those evolutionists you follow don't consider God's guiding hand at all.

6. No. Old earth is fine. Nothing is undermined. Old man, different story.

7. Obviously not. But Moses will not be impressed with you ignoring Genesis. Do you think Moses was not inspired to write Genesis? He either was or he was not.

 

[KingJ]

Why would I be OK with man coming from flatworms????

There is good, verifiable, data on which to base the age of the universe at 13.5 billion years. (Google "how do we calculate the age of the universe")

The Theory of Evolution, in its current state, is useful in understanding the development of new species in nature (creation.) It is particularly useful in the study of bacteria and viruses which constantly mutate into new strains and demonstrate the ability of single celled life forms to adapt to our assaults upon them with antibiotics.

But, being science (the study of creation) it is not of any use whatsoever in addressing the manner in which God (who is not part of creation) operates.

Well this is a pointless discussion as you believe God guided evolution. So any date can fit your belief.

 

[KingJ]

And blindly quoting from sources you trust only because they're Christian and tickling your ear with what you want to hear is....well....you know.

I tend to trust sites that teach the need to love and serve Jesus more then those that don't.

The discussion on quotes is quite funny. Pro evolutionists seem hell bent on proving so many as false. When propaganda is all you have, you have to protect it :lol:.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

[quote name="River Jordan" post="251355" timestamp="1432405611

I've posted the survey data here several times that shows one of the factors driving youth out of Christianity is that they see the faith as "hostile to science". You can deny if you like, but that doesn't change reality


.[/quote]

And yet there is massive worldwide revival among organizations of which you know absolutely nothing about. Will you claim to know exactly everything that God is doing in the world? Of that I have no doubt. But the truth is, you are clueless. The latter day revival fires burn brighter in spite of your disdain for the church. You've lost. You never had a chance.

BTW 1973 is extremely recent (especially if you are a bible denying old earther) and that's how long state sponsored abortion has been taking place. Sad emoji.

 

[aspen]

There is no conflict between the Bible and science

 

[StanJ]

There is no conflict between the Bible and science

But there is between so-called science and the Bible.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: (‭1 Timothy‬ ‭6‬:‭20‬ KJV)

 

[JimParker]

1. Well 10k is almost acceptable. The problem I have is with 30k or 300k. Does it make sense to you that God not interact at all with mankind for so many years? God was ok with leaving intelligent man to their own devices? Why was there not earlier recorded accounts of Noah type catastrophes passed down? You can't just say ''God can do whatever He wants''. That is a cop out. Scripture is clear that God has interacted and cared about intelligent man from day 1. The lineage of Adam is also well recorded in scripture.

2. Why is mankind accountable for sin and in need of a Savior if not for intelligence? As you have said, He was planned before the foundations of the earth.

3. As I asked on the other thread... So you don't see natural selection as evil? Can you explain how selfishness and brutality are characteristics of a good and loving God.

4. But by agreeing with evolution you are. How is a MONKEY created in the image of God?

5. That is funny that you believe that. Those evolutionists you follow don't consider God's guiding hand at all.

6. No. Old earth is fine. Nothing is undermined. Old man, different story.

7. Obviously not. But Moses will not be impressed with you ignoring Genesis. Do you think Moses was not inspired to write Genesis? He either was or he was not.

<<Does it make sense to you that God not interact at all with mankind for so many years?>>

What "makes sense" is irrelevant. God does what He does when He wants to. And God is not influenced by time. Time is part oc creation and God is not part of creation.

<<Why was there not earlier recorded accounts of Noah type catastrophes passed down?>>

There are earlier accounts. The Mesopotamian account of the flood predates Moses by at least 500 years.

<<Scripture is clear that God has interacted and cared about intelligent man from day 1>>

No. He interacted with Adam, not all mankind. There is no indication of God interacting with the people who dwelt "east of Eden" from whom Cain took a wife.

Until you extract yourself from the misguided assumption that the Bible is natural history, you will continue to make foolish statments about the age of the universe and misunderstand the scriptures.

 

[Wormwood]

I'm not talking about formal training or education; I'm talking about at least looking into a subject enough to have a decent understanding of it before going around speaking as an authority. It's like someone never bothering to read the Bible, and then acting like they know anything about it. Do you think that's ok?

No, but again, my point is that both sides do this. Professional intellectuals like to discount the Bible on account of their perceptions on evolution, etc...even through they have little or no knowledge of the Bible. My point is this: I dont often find Christians in our universities saying, "The adaptation we see in the cell cannot be true, it goes against the Bible!" Rather, I see many (not all) Christians trying to honestly reconcile their faith with what is observed. They do this by looking at the same data and providing other possible explanations than sheer naturalism. This is not "anti-science," its providing different narratives for the same scientific discoveries. Yet, I do see many (not all) professional intellectuals saying, "We know the earth is billions of years old and that we evolved from a single cell, therefore the Bible is fairy tales."

Again, according to science, "We know dead cells dont come back to life." That does not mean that something miraculous in the past could have taken place such that things are not always as they seem and the naturalists perspective could, on occasion, be inaccurate. So, I rarely see Christians attacking science, but I do often see intellectuals attacking Christianity because miracles and creation accounts do not conform to their naturalistic narrative. I see intellectuals claiming Christians cannot be scientific and I think that is wrong.

Try and understand that a statistical correlation does not necessitate a specific behavior. Just because Biblical literalism correlates with anti-science attitudes, it doesn't mean it has to. The results of this study indicate that there's a strong anti-science culture within conservative Christianity. That needs to change.

The implication there is pretty clear. The more "literally" (which begs definition) one takes the Bible, the less scientific they become. I think this is not only unverifiable (unless one defines "science" as embracing Darwinism) but purely agenda driven. Offering different meta-narratives to scientific discoveries is not being "anti-science." There may be some Christians who are anti-science in their demand to make the OT a science book, but its misleading to suggest that there is a direct correlation between one's hermeneutics and their disgust for science. Science began mostly with Christians who took the Bible "literally" (at least how many would define that word today). To suggest the too are generally antithetical is like saying that a tree is antithetical to its root.

I've got news for you. Women have been deliberately ending their pregnancies for thousands of years, so there's no need to act like abortion is a recent phenomenon. And yes, I prefer to live at a time when things like institutionalized racism, discrimination, misogyny, and such are on the decline rather than prominent institutional features

.
Yes, but 1) people were not doing such horrific things while claiming to be "Christian" and 2) we have never seen such practices embraced and celebrated by cultures and medical practices to the tune of 1.1 million per year in America alone. Also, lets not pretend that racism or misogymy were done away with as a result of people distancing themselves from the Bible. If anything, it was those committed to the Scriptures that were key catalysts to putting an end to such things, rather than the other way around. In sum, turning from the authority of the Bible has led to all kinds of moral decadance such as abortions and the celebration of all kinds of sexual impurity...and the acceptance of the Bible as the authority was the foundation of doing away with racism, discrimination and misogyny.

I've posted the survey data here several times that shows one of the factors driving youth out of Christianity is that they see the faith as "hostile to science". You can deny if you like, but that doesn't change reality.

Yeah, online surveys are a real depiction of "reality." Its funny that both Republicans and Democrats both use polls to show how the public favors them. I think the real factor that is driving people away from Christianity is the lack of authentic, committed Christians. I dont think the Gospel stands or falls based on our stance on Darwin or opinions on how old the earth is. I think the Kingdom of God is a bit bigger than that, myself.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

WW,

Very true. Millennials, contrary to their opinion, are not the only demographic on the planet. The church is healthy and vibrant in many parts of the world. America and Europe are backslidden. We are committing spiritual and societal suicide. Part of this process is that we believe we are animals. Therefore, we act like such. We are cry babies. We are narcissistic. Just look at this thread and others.

The other parts of the planet are grateful. Willing to hit their knees and humble themselves before God. There are naturalists on this forum that if truth be told, they would never bow down broken before an almighty God. "He needs to hear us out first, they would say." Chagrined emoji.

 

[aspen]

America and Europe are backslidden. We are committing spiritual and societal suicide. Part of this process is that we believe we are animals. Therefore, we act like such. We are cry babies. We are narcissistic. Just look at this thread and others.

The other parts of the planet are grateful. Willing to hit their knees and humble themselves before God. There are naturalists on this forum that if truth be told, they would never bow down broken before an almighty God. "He needs to hear us out first, they would say." Chagrined emoji.

And whose the cry baby again? BTW, where are these vast lands of devotees, located?

 

[BlackManINC]

WW,

Very true. Millennials, contrary to their opinion, are not the only demographic on the planet. The church is healthy and vibrant in many parts of the world. America and Europe are backslidden. We are committing spiritual and societal suicide. Part of this process is that we believe we are animals. Therefore, we act like such. We are cry babies. We are narcissistic. Just look at this thread and others.

The other parts of the planet are grateful. Willing to hit their knees and humble themselves before God. There are naturalists on this forum that if truth be told, they would never bow down broken before an almighty God. "He needs to hear us out first, they would say." Chagrined emoji.

And if I were God I would tell them to shut their whore mouths or I will backhand you into the lake of fire with the rest of the lot. "Hear me out". NO, I'm the judge, so shut it or I'll shut it for you.