Denying Reality
- Thread starter aspen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
Fantasy: have made a significant advance towards establishing the origin of the carbohydrates (sugars) that form the building blocks of life
Reality: could have ... made the first step towards ... it could explain ... first step on that pathway to show ... One of the interesting questions
So, what we have is a "could have" "first step on that pathway" to answer "One of the interesting questions"
This only shows how desperate the situation is.
- There are zero workable theories of how Life could exist without God.
- Scientist don't have a clue of where to look.
- Scientist don't have a clue of what they are looking for.
There are many projects evaluating the plausibility of where to look, Mars, Moons, ocean, under water volcanos, ...etc.
NOBODY is considering an actual theory of the simplest form of Life, because the simplest forms of life can do things the scientist can't; and don't have a clue how to do it.
The simplest forms of Life are a complete chemical factory, engineered down to the atom level, capable of building all the building blocks of life, and do it like crazy.
Our brave scientist thinks he may have made a step on the path to learn one of the things simple one-cell dudes do.
Give that man a cigar.
.
Just listened to the Nye/Ham debate again. I think the bottom line is that real science makes predictions. All Ham could do was make the claim that we cannot know how our world came to be through observation so we need to turn to the creation story. As Nye said - that is fine if you are satisfied with that answer, but if it is not based on the observation and logical predictions based on those observations, it is not science. Ham was actually making an anti-science argument because he was claiming that we cannot know based on observation and prediction. Therefore, his museum is not based on observation/prediction - it is based on the Genesis account, which is fine in the context of theology.
None of the information in the debate bothered me - God created the world, but based on observation/prediction, or science, He did so in a manner that suggests evolution. Here is what bothered me, Nye's love for his profession - he simply loves the truth that he has found. That is the love I expected to see in Ham. On the contrary, Ham looked burdened and weary. It was sad and surprising. Perhaps Hovid would have done a better job of at least showing his love for the truth he has claimed to have found.
None of the information in the debate bothered me - God created the world, but based on observation/prediction, or science, He did so in a manner that suggests evolution. Here is what bothered me, Nye's love for his profession - he simply loves the truth that he has found. That is the love I expected to see in Ham. On the contrary, Ham looked burdened and weary. It was sad and surprising. Perhaps Hovid would have done a better job of at least showing his love for the truth he has claimed to have found.
River Jordan said:
There is a picture of you on the left:
http://hikingartist.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/coservative-fish-old-days-betterfrits-ahlefeldt.jpg
IBeMe,
Why is it so important to you that scientists haven't figured out the origins of life question? Is that important to your faith? What happens if they do develop a plausible scenario for how the first life forms arose?
Why is it so important to you that scientists haven't figured out the origins of life question? Is that important to your faith? What happens if they do develop a plausible scenario for how the first life forms arose?
River,
I fear you are dancing to your own VMAT2. Why can't you just believe in one less god. You are atheistic of untold thousands of deities. Why not one more.
Simple actually VMAT2 will not allow you. Perhaps gene therapy will work?
I fear you are dancing to your own VMAT2. Why can't you just believe in one less god. You are atheistic of untold thousands of deities. Why not one more.
Simple actually VMAT2 will not allow you. Perhaps gene therapy will work?
Seriously? Why would you even suggest that I should be an atheist?
Is what you posted from God, or more in line with Satan's work?
Is what you posted from God, or more in line with Satan's work?
When Bill Nye The Science Guy was gently pressed into a corner on the question of the origins of life he said ....River Jordan said:
...maybe a meteorite from outer space brought living organisms to earth
I kid you not.
So do you feel Bill Nye's statement about life coming via space rocks is fact or theory ?River Jordan said:
I see it as theory , and a preposterous one at that.
Bill Nye The Science Guy said he thinks all the chemicals on the periodical table were created when a star explodedRiver Jordan said:
He needs to stop using bible words if he is to be taken seriously.
So? Is Nye an exobiology researcher, or even an expert in that field?Arnie Manitoba said:
Wow. You still don't understand what "theory" means in science. There's just nothing more to be said to you on this.
justaname
Disciple of Jesus Christ
- Mar 14, 2011
- 2,348
- 149
- 63
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I do not believe Christianity asks us to deny reality.
The Bible does have this to say:
Proverbs 3:5-7
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart
And do not lean on your own understanding.
6 In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He will make your paths straight.
7 Do not be wise in your own eyes;
Fear the Lord and turn away from evil.
In this though I see the reference in the context of moral living.
Also this is said speaking of the Christ:
Isaiah 11:3
3 And He will delight in the fear of the Lord,
And He will not judge by what His eyes see,
Nor make a decision by what His ears hear;
Yet context will direct away from our topic here, context here being morality and righteousness. Ruling out these as being passages that could be used biblically for the case against truth in science, still these remain.
Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
And also:
1Timothy 6:20-21
20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called “knowledge”—
21 which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith.
Grace be with you.
Now these passages can be looked to as being against "worldly knowledge." Personally I do not agree with this interpretation some might profess, yet nonetheless a valid biblical case can be made.
Now in truth, observation can produce deceptive conclusions, yet this would be the exception not the rule. With the rigors of science and the scrutiny given by scientists, we have no grounds for reasonable doubt unless given rise by the methods used.
So here is where many Christians feel they are faced with a dilemma: Trust the scientist with all his methods or trust the biblical account, yet there is another solution.
We can look to Christian scientists to see what they are saying. This is where I position myself in my case advocating science and the biblical account. When looking at the logical facts, science has truly given nothing to make us believe evolution is true.
I recommend a good video, Ben Stein's "Expelled"
Also books, Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis"
So do we deny reality, No. But we don't have to swallow everything people present to us as so called truth either.
The Bible does have this to say:
Proverbs 3:5-7
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart
And do not lean on your own understanding.
6 In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He will make your paths straight.
7 Do not be wise in your own eyes;
Fear the Lord and turn away from evil.
In this though I see the reference in the context of moral living.
Also this is said speaking of the Christ:
Isaiah 11:3
3 And He will delight in the fear of the Lord,
And He will not judge by what His eyes see,
Nor make a decision by what His ears hear;
Yet context will direct away from our topic here, context here being morality and righteousness. Ruling out these as being passages that could be used biblically for the case against truth in science, still these remain.
Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
And also:
1Timothy 6:20-21
20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called “knowledge”—
21 which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith.
Grace be with you.
Now these passages can be looked to as being against "worldly knowledge." Personally I do not agree with this interpretation some might profess, yet nonetheless a valid biblical case can be made.
Now in truth, observation can produce deceptive conclusions, yet this would be the exception not the rule. With the rigors of science and the scrutiny given by scientists, we have no grounds for reasonable doubt unless given rise by the methods used.
So here is where many Christians feel they are faced with a dilemma: Trust the scientist with all his methods or trust the biblical account, yet there is another solution.
We can look to Christian scientists to see what they are saying. This is where I position myself in my case advocating science and the biblical account. When looking at the logical facts, science has truly given nothing to make us believe evolution is true.
I recommend a good video, Ben Stein's "Expelled"
Also books, Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis"
So do we deny reality, No. But we don't have to swallow everything people present to us as so called truth either.
Why are you bothered by real science?
It's important to my love for real science.
I've always hated phonyism.
A plausible scenario isn't the goal.
plausible: superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious (Merriam-Webster)
Nobody's that ambitious.
science: = the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance (Merriam-Webster)
Evolution is the inverse of science.
They're not looking for knowledge, they're looking for something that can't be proven ignorance.
Right now, all they have is ignorance.
.
Did you look at what Christian scientists such as Ken Miller or Francis Collins are saying?justaname said:
That's a pretty serious statement, the importance of which can't be overstated. How did you come to a level of knowledge and expertise that allows you to speak so authoritatively about the state of evolutionary biology? What did you study?
Would you be interested in learning about some of the exaggerations and outright falsehoods promoted in that movie?
What in DBB did you find so compelling? And are you aware that Denton completely switched sides and in his later book "Nature's Destiny" concedes that the molecular evidence supports common descent (he now argues for a form of theistic evolution)?
It's good to see you express that sentiment. That'll come in handy.
Sorry, that question makes no sense.IBeMe said:
And how are you defining "real science"?
Yeah, it is. Given the absence of actual hard data to compare any scenario to, likely the best exobiologists will come up with is a chemical pathway from organic precursors to self-replicating, sustainable life. But it's highly doubtful they'll be able to definitively say "this is how it happened".
Oh brother. So why aren't you attending exobiology conferences and telling them this? Why aren't you sharing your vast knowledge of this subject with the relevant experts? Why post such paradigm-altering, historical information anonymously on obscure internet message boards?
"He now argues for a form of theistic evolution"
Yes, with the discovery institute. Along with Meyer, Behe, Berlinski and others who do not buy into Darwinism lock, stock, and barrel as you do. So what is your point?
Science will never solve the abiogenesis problem because it will never be able to duplicate the early earth environment. It will always be speculative.
No doubt you will accept it as gospel the day they make the announcement. That is for sure. You may even shed a little tear.
Yes, with the discovery institute. Along with Meyer, Behe, Berlinski and others who do not buy into Darwinism lock, stock, and barrel as you do. So what is your point?
Science will never solve the abiogenesis problem because it will never be able to duplicate the early earth environment. It will always be speculative.
No doubt you will accept it as gospel the day they make the announcement. That is for sure. You may even shed a little tear.
justaname
Disciple of Jesus Christ
- Mar 14, 2011
- 2,348
- 149
- 63
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Wow, this is interesting. You want to see my listing of education and fields of study over a post in a Christian forum. Is this a formal debate or is this an opinion forum? If we are not allowed to have a solid position on any given topic without full disclosure of all of our current degrees, then what is the point of informal discussion?River Jordan said:
I am aware there are Christians that believe God used a form of theistic evolution. I am also aware there are Christians that discredit the validity of theistic evolution. Both sides have valid arguments supporting their case. Both sides have potential "problems" within their framework.
Sure I would like to see the falsehoods presented by Stein.
I have been given no scientific evidence that persuades my opinion that the Biblical account is allegorical as opposed to literal. This interpretation is not the foundation of my faith although, and I am open to scientific evidence supporting any method God uses in His creation.
well CJ, you better hope science doesnt because youve got a lot to lose if the missing pieces fall into place.....with your all or nothing, literalism, youd be left one angry Buddhist
You got to have an absolute. You have to know that you know aspen. Where there won't be no room for doubt. Then there won't be a devil in hell that can prevail against you. Blessingsaspen said:
lol, nice
bride, why do we have to have a truth with no doubt? our doubt doesnt diminish Absolute truth. some of Gods best friends on Earth experienced doubt.
bride, why do we have to have a truth with no doubt? our doubt doesnt diminish Absolute truth. some of Gods best friends on Earth experienced doubt.
''Does He care about how you feel about the Bible - nope'' Really? You believe that? God wasted His time inspiring the writers /giving Moses ten commandments, prophets prophecies, Jesus teaching, Paul's teaching and instructions on running churches....you miss the harsh warnings to anyone who teaches contrary to His word?....the very substance of our faith comes from hearing....scripture Rom 10:17. No offence, but you and River are in desperate need of some bible study classes.aspen said:
Back to the question. I believe that if science disproves a belief, that belief is obsolete! Which is why we need to evaluate contentious claims properly! As a Christian you and I should believe that bible is fact just as a fossil is fact. An honest person will then try their best to date the fossil and if they know it is not absolutely certain they will conclude.... ''there is a fossil of a ferocious dinosaur, likely millions of years old''. Hence an honest assumption can be made that the earth is likely millions of year old. But, what happens is....a fossil is found, dated and suddenly a reptile millions of years old is part of our ancestral lineage... :blink:. It is just a matter of time until they do the math and grasp that evolution is only possible if it is guided. Soon we will have aliens involved in our evolution. Will you and River jump on that belief too?
It is very ironic that the thing you claim as the uttermost important aspect of Christianity.. the underlined ''God says He is Good - i believe Him''...you actually don't believe. How do you judge a God responsible for billions of years of CRUEL natural selection to be good? If God is guilty of cruelty He is evil / bad, not good <_<. All evil in this world / universe is traced to the fall of man and the angels. That is a big door left open for heresy and rejection of scripture to take place in the mind of a TE don't you think? It is always amusing to hear a TE explain the fall of man and it's effect on the environment from scripture ...when scripture mentions all animals were herbivores Gen 1:30 and that wolves will lie with lambs Isaiah 11:6.
God is good. God teaches us in scripture to turn the left cheek. Natural selection teaches the opposite...hardly rocket science to join the dots and find the author of evolution....now is it?
You STILL don't get that observeable evidence is a much needed requirement of the typical scientific theory?River Jordan said:
Gravity was a theory because...we could observe it but not properly explain it. I am sure many modern theories are now literally just theories. They just forgot to send out the memo of the change in definitions....sadly creating many annoying people.
Would Peter ever doubt after Matt 16:16-17?aspen said:
No, just a quick summary of what you've studied. Did you take undergraduate level courses? Graduate level? What books on the subject have you read? Do you read scientific journals? That sort of thing.justaname said:
IMO, it's a matter of humility. Whether it be in internet forums, one on one conversations, or in public speeches, I try and not go around making sweeping proclamations about subjects I don't know that much about.
What's funny though is that I've noticed it's the creationists who've studied science the least who feel themselves the most qualified to evaluate science and declare entire fields invalid. It's a very good demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
So why do you find Denton and Behe more persuasive than Miller and Collins?
Ok. Let me test my connection some today. I had to bail yesterday because it barely worked.
What key scientific evidence do you believe is lacking?
Of course, and that's exactly what we have....observable evidence.KingJ said:
Gravity was a theory? For the love of.....
Gravitational Theories
We actually know a lot more about how evolution works than gravity. But don't let little things like reality get in your way.
- Status
Similar threads
