Is Christianity alone in this?

[Tcg]

This is certainly not true of all Christians, but there is a subset that rejects the findings of science because they perceive that in some cases these findings conflict with a literal reading of scripture. The age of the earth is a good example. Some claim it is around 6,000 years old. Scientific calculations place it at around 4.5 billion. Evolution is another scientific finding that often gets rejected because it seemingly conflicts with the Genesis story of creation.

Are there other religions that have a subset of its followers who reject scientific findings or is Christianity alone in this?


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

So far I have debunked both your analogies.

Did you??

I did. Both of 'em.

I suspect that your claim that I am still not getting the point, and you declining to clarify what the analogy and the point actually is looks like a smokescreen.

You didn't ask for clarification.

Since you said i was missing the point, I shouldn'[t have to; you should say what the point was. I still think you are smokescreening. In fact I'm sure of it.

We (and you) rely on science every day.

[quite]You rely on science every day. I rely on God every day.

No. You rely on 'science' every day; that your car will start; that your house will not fall down. You just credit God for it.

You only 'disagree' when it cuts across your faith.

My faith is based upon sufficient evidence, and will not be shaken by insufficient evidence.

Your faith is based on the denial of compelling evidence, and that has been compellingly evident over the last handful of posts.

Very irrational, inconsistent and in denial of the way that science has consistently turned out to be right and the Bible wrong.

Science / logical reasoning says that the universe began to exist, which is what the Bible has been saying for thousands of years before empirical data poured in.

The Bible was simply going with what everyone sees, but Logic and indeed theist argument says that the universe (the basic cosmic Stuff) would have to have always been there, uncreated, as the only alternative to an intelligent creator (name your own - as of course a Creator does nothing to prove a particular religion) and since nothing is less logical and unscientific than a complex creative being with no origin, an uncreated stuff is the more probable and logical hypothesis.

Science (observation, experiment, prediction) tells us that animals only produce what they are, not what they aren't. The Bible has been telling us that animals will bring forth (produce) after their kinds.

Science and indeed Creationists - tells us that animals evolve. Science also proves (e.g the Cetan sequence) that, given time, the changes can turn a land animal into a sea animal. That's compelling evidence for speciation, no matter what we can observe in a lifetime or even a thousand years.

Science (observation, experiment, prediction) tells us that intelligence (the mind) only comes from intelligence. The Bible tells us that a mind (intelligence) created other minds.

So, the record shows that science has just begun to catch up to what the Bible has been saying for thousands of years...contrary to your false sentiments.

Contrary to your apologetic, Science has been proving the Bible wrong ever since Eratosthenes proved the earth wasn't flat. The Bible - or rather, its' apologists, have been trying to claim that was what the Bible has been saying all along, including misrepresenting science to try to fit it to the Bible.

I doubt that even you supposes that the earth is a flat circle with a dome over it. Rather you would try to argue that's what the Bible Really says (even though it doesn't).

?

clarification Genesis is clearly talking of a flat circular earth surrounded by mountains with sluices (the fountains of the deep) in them, and a dome over the top with the celestial bodies trundling around inside, and the waters above the dome, plus God's throne perched above it. This is not, science told us from the renaissance onwards, what the reality is. Not even you would say so, and instead you would pretend that it is really talking about a globe with the solar system, galaxy etc, as you know what is considered deniable by the Creationist dogma and what is not.

And Wow indeed, when DNA answered the mystery of Instinct and that is leading to a Biological understanding of human behavior and thus, ethics and morals.

DNA doesn't tell us what we ought/ought not do.

So, try again.

DNA does tell us what to do. It's called instinct. Of course you are confusing that with the problem solving facility we call reason. So go back and start again.

Of course without the Universe where would be no humans and no science. Though there would be Physics, of a kind. That's as pointless as crediting the Construction industry with learning 'Without the builder making the building, there would be no education classes'. true but pointless and irrelevant. And I see no reason at all to give credit to a postulated Creative Cosmic Mind that probably doesn't exist, and would probably not care about what you or I credit or not even if it did. It is rather you who needs to credit legitimate doubts and questions about these faith -claims of yours.

However you slice it, sir.

However You try to slice it, good sir, you are still not making a valid case. So far we have seen only denial, strawmanning and crafty rhetoric. No real evidence, good or bad.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I did. Both of em.

Oh. Ok.

Since you said i was missing the point, I shouldn'[t have to; you should say what the point was.

I already overexerted myself with the re-explanation.

Anything besides that, you are on your on.

I still think you are smokescreening. In fact I'm sure of it.

Tsk tsk.

No. You rely on 'science' every day; that your car will start; that your house will not fall down. You just credit God for it.

Your belt holds up your pants. But the belt loops holds up your belt.

So, who is the real hero here?

Catch my drift? There is another point being made there.

Please do not miss it ..respectfully.

Your faith is based on the denial of compelling evidence, and that has been compellingly evident over the last handful of posts.

And you reject what I've found to be compelling evidence for the Christian faith.

I guess it is just one of those things, ya know.

The Bible was simply going with what everyone sees, but Logic and indeed theist argument says that the universe (the basic cosmic Stuff) would have to have always been there, uncreated, as the only alternative to an intelligent creator (name your own - as of course a Creator does nothing to prove a particular religion) and since nothing is less logical and unscientific than a complex creative being with no origin, an uncreated stuff is the more probable and logical hypothesis.

?

Science and indeed Creationists - tells us that animals evolve. Science also proves (e.g the Cetan sequence) that, given time, the changes can turn a land animal into a sea animal.

That is not what the science says. That is what the theory of evolution is says.

I understand that you wouldn't have it any other way; by integrating your religion (evolution) with science.

But that is indeed the error of your ways.

That's compelling evidence for speciation, no matter what we can observe in a lifetime or even a thousand years.

Speciation is not macroevolution.

Contrary to your apologetic, Science has been proving the Bible wrong ever since Eratosthenes proved the earth wasn't flat. The Bible - or rather, its' apologists, have been trying to claim that was what the Bible has been saying all along, including misrepresenting science to try to fit it to the Bible.

Quote the scripture where it states that the earth is flat...without using any of the "four corners of the earth" figure of speech stuff.

clarification Genesis is clearly talking of a flat circular earth surrounded by mountains with sluices (the fountains of the deep) in them, and a dome over the top with the celestial bodies trundling around inside, and the waters above the dome, plus God's throne perched above it.

I need specifics. Scripture?

This is not, science told us from the renaissance onwards, what the reality is. Not even you would say so, and instead you would pretend that it is really talking about a globe with the solar system, galaxy etc, as you know what is considered deniable by the Creationist dogma and what is not.

Scripture?

And Wow indeed, when DNA answered the mystery of Instinct and that is leading to a Biological understanding of human behavior and thus, ethics and morals.

DNA doesn't tell us what we ought/ought not do.

So, try again.

DNA does tell us what to do. It's called instinct.

Ok. So the next time a person commits mass murder by gunning down innocent people, we can just chalk it up to "he was just acting according to his instinct".

And everyone can go home happy after that.

Cool?

Of course you are confusing that with the problem solving facility we call reason. So go back and start again.

?

However You try to slice it, good sir, you are still not making a valid case. So far we have seen only denial, strawmanning and crafty rhetoric. No real evidence, good or bad.

No good case can ever be made to those...

[TRANSPONDER]

I did. Both of em.

Oh. Ok.

Since you said i was missing the point, I shouldn'[t have to; you should say what the point was.

I already overexerted myself with the re-explanation.
Anything besides that, you are on your on.

And I refuted both of them. Ball is in you court.. You decline to return it on whatever pretext and you lose a point.

[quote[I still think you are smokescreening. In fact I'm sure of it.

Tsk tsk.

No. You rely on 'science' every day; that your car will start; that your house will not fall down. You just credit God for it.

Your belt holds up your pants. But the belt loops holds up your belt.

So, who is the real hero here?

Catch my drift? There is another point being made there.

Please do not miss it ..respectfully.

We know pants are held by the belt, the belt by the loops. The loops are made by manufacturers. No god needed. This is the point being made here.

Your faith is based on the denial of compelling evidence, and that has been compellingly evident over the last handful of posts.

And you reject what I've found to be compelling evidence for the Christian faith.

I guess it is just one of those things, ya know.

I have rebutted it. it is not one of those things' , which I translate as your opinion is as good as mine. It isn't. You need to find some persuasive arguments, not just opt out.

The Bible was simply going with what everyone sees, but Logic and indeed theist argument says that the universe (the basic cosmic Stuff) would have to have always been there, uncreated, as the only alternative to an intelligent creator (name your own - as of course a Creator does nothing to prove a particular religion) and since nothing is less logical and unscientific than a complex creative being with no origin, an uncreated stuff is the more probable and logical hypothesis.

?

Science and indeed Creationists - tells us that animals evolve. Science also proves (e.g the Cetan sequence) that, given time, the changes can turn a land animal into a sea animal.

That is not what the science says. That is what the theory of evolution is says.

I understand that you wouldn't have it any other way; by integrating your religion (evolution) with science.

But that is indeed the error of your ways.

The theory of evolution IS science. It is not religion or dogma. The error of your ways is projecting the erroneous Theist -thinking onto me, evolutionists and science.

That's compelling evidence for speciation, no matter what we can observe in a lifetime or even a thousand years.

Speciation is not macroevolution.

That's like saying that meteorologogy is not weather. What precisely do you see as the difference between the meaning of 'Macro -evolution' as it is so -called and speciation?

Contrary to your apologetic, Science has been proving the Bible wrong ever since Eratosthenes proved the earth wasn't flat. The Bible - or rather, its' apologists, have been trying to claim that was what the Bible has been saying all along, including misrepresenting science to try to fit it to the Bible.

Quote the scripture where it states that the earth is flat...without using any of the "four corners of the earth" figure of speech stuff.

Chum I can't point to then scripture that says that the earth is part of the solar system and that is part of the galaxy. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true.

clarification Genesis is clearly talking of a flat circular earth surrounded by mountains with sluices (the fountains of the deep) in them, and a dome over the top with the celestial bodies trundling around inside, and the waters above the dome, plus God's throne perched above it.

I need specifics. Scripture?

Well I'll be up front and say that it isn't as easy as that, though I said 'clearly'. It is rather that the Babylonian model as I described better fits with the descriptions in the Bible than present day cosmology does. But it would take a lot of discussion to argue it all out. I'll concede you the point so far.

This is not, science told us from the renaissance onwards, what the reality is. Not even you would say so, and instead you would pretend that it is really talking about a globe with the solar system, galaxy etc, as you know what is considered deniable by the Creationist dogma and what is not.

Scripture?

And Wow indeed, when DNA answered the mystery of Instinct and that is leading to a Biological understanding of human behavior and thus, ethics and morals.

DNA doesn't tell us what we ought/ought not do.

So, try again.

DNA does tell us what to do. It's called instinct.

Ok. So the next time a person commits mass murder by gunning down innocent people, we can just chalk it up to "he was just acting according to his instinct".

And everyone can go home happy after that.

Cool?

You forgot that I added reason to that. Instinct tells us 'what to do' which refutes what you claimed (it cannot tell us what to do). But reason enables us to think again.

Of course you are confusing that with the problem solving facility we call reason. So go back and start again.

?

However You try to slice it, good sir, you are still not making a valid case. So far we have seen only denial, strawmanning and crafty rhetoric. No real evidence, good or bad.

No good case can ever be made to those...

You mean that no good case can ever be made resorting to those.

[We_Are_VENOM]

We know pants are held by the belt, the belt by the loops. The loops are made by manufacturers. No god needed. This is the point being made here.

Oh, so you missed my point and decided to make up your own.

Gotcha.

I have rebutted it. it is not one of those things' , which I translate as your opinion is as good as mine. It isn't. You need to find some persuasive arguments, not just opt out.

I found some.

The theory of evolution IS science. It is not religion or dogma. The error of your ways is projecting the erroneous Theist -thinking onto me, evolutionists and science.

I disagree.

That's like saying that meteorologogy is not weather.

Because meteorology in fact isn't weather.

What precisely do you see as the difference between the meaning of 'Macro -evolution' as it is so -called and speciation?

When an animal evolves into a new species, this new species is still under the same genus. In other words, no new kind of animal is being created.

However, a reptile evolving into a bird entails an entire new kind of (genus).

The difference between the two is, one is natural science, and other is voodoo science.

Chum I can't point to then scripture that says that the earth is part of the solar system and that is part of the galaxy. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true.

But im sure you can point to the "God created everything, of which the earth, solar system, and galaxy, is included" scripture.

I know I can.

Well I'll be up front and say that it isn't as easy as that, though I said 'clearly'.

You have my respect, sir.

It is rather that the Babylonian model as I described better fits with the descriptions in the Bible than present day cosmology does. But it would take a lot of discussion to argue it all out. I'll concede you the point so far.

Again, much respect

You forgot that I added reason to that. Instinct tells us 'what to do' which refutes what you claimed (it cannot tell us what to do). But reason enables us to think again.

You forgot that I added "ought" to my sentiments that DNA doesn't tell us what to do.

Telling us what to do, and what we ought to do are two different concepts.

DNA doesn't tell us that the Holocaust was wrong, or right.

Those are moral judgements, that nature/science are silence on.

You mean that no good case can ever be made resorting to those.

Thanks. The next I am confused on what I mean, I will consult you.

[TRANSPONDER]

We know pants are held by the belt, the belt by the loops. The loops are made by manufacturers. No god needed. This is the point being made here.

Oh, so you missed my point and decided to make up your own.

Gotcha.

No. I refuted the point or argument that you were trying to make. Not checkmate yet.

I have rebutted it. it is not one of those things' , which I translate as your opinion is as good as mine. It isn't. You need to find some persuasive arguments, not just opt out.

I found some.

If so you haven't produced there here. You have essayed a few stock ploys which I refuted.

The theory of evolution IS science. It is not religion or dogma. The error of your ways is projecting the erroneous Theist -thinking onto me, evolutionists and science.

I disagree.

But science and not a small number of the religious, who respect science and even accept the evidence for evolution, disagree with you.

That's like saying that meteorologogy is not weather.

Because meteorology in fact isn't weather.

True, but one is about the other. Evolution theory is about speciation. Your trying to make one not the other is wrongheaded or crafty or both.

What precisely do you see as the difference between the meaning of 'Macro -evolution' as it is so -called and speciation?

When an animal evolves into a new species, this new species is still under the same genus. In other words, no new kind of animal is being created.

That is what the creationists would call 'Micro -evolution' (within species)

However, a reptile evolving into a bird entails an entire new kind of (genus).

That is what the Creationists would call 'macro evolution' (once species changes to another).

The difference between the two is, one is natural science, and other is voodoo science.

No. The difference is that one is attested in the fossil record, morphology and often in DNA. It is rejected by Evolution -deniers on the grounds that we can't see it happening before our eyes and by referring to some mysterious genetic barrier between species (which is 'Voodoo" science, if you like (1). The other IS accepted by Creationists as change within species, though we find it equally hard to observe that in real time as even that takes tens of thousands of years, such as horse evolution. The pepper moth experiment makes the case though some Creationists tried to debunk it, and the mantra 'It's still a fruit -fly' is their stumper.

But the evidence you have to deny is the kind that solves cold cases or crime scenes where there is no CCTV and we work from clues and forensic evidence. The morphology of birds proves that they came from four legged creatures. The fossil evidence shows that dinosaurs were the creatures they came from. The cetan sequence is compelling evidence that Whales evolved from a land animal. Tikttalic and other missing links show transitions that were predicted. Human 2 chromosome near - proves descent from a common ancestor with other primates.
There is compelling evidence for evolution, and nothing but denial, misunderstanding and misrepresentation on the creationist side.

Chum I can't point to then scripture that says that the earth is part of the solar system and that is part of the galaxy. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true.

But im sure you can point to the "God created everything, of which the earth, solar system, and galaxy, is included" scripture.

I know I can.

Both you and I can point to a walking snake, a talking donkey, a sun standing still and disease being put down to evil spirits, in both our Bibles. But that doesn't make it true.

Well I'll be up front and say that it isn't as easy as that, though I said 'clearly'.

You have my respect, sir. [

It is rather that the Babylonian model as I described better fits with the descriptions in the Bible than present day cosmology does. But it would take a lot of discussion to argue it all out. I'll concede you the point so far.

Again, much respect

Ok, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong, just that I would have to do a lot of work and posting to make my case.

You forgot that I added reason to that. Instinct tells us 'what to do' which refutes what you claimed (it cannot tell us what to do). But reason enables us to think again.

You forgot that I added "ought" to my sentiments that DNA doesn't tell us what to do.

Telling us what to do, and what we ought to do are two different concepts.

DNA doesn't tell us that the Holocaust was wrong, or right.

Those are moral judgements, that nature/science are silence on.

I'll check that, but as I recall when you changed it, I also changed the response - DNA tells us what to do (instinct). Reason tells us what we ought to do (Ethics).
Gotcha.

You mean that no good case can ever be made resorting to those.

Thanks. The next I am confused on what I mean, I will consult you.

I'll straighten you out whether you consult me or not. Just to make sure you don't confuse anyone else.
Gotcha again.


(1) or pseudo -science, science - denial or alt- science, as it is sometimes called.

[TRANSPONDER]

I understand that denial of the universe being 14.5 billion years old would resolve the 7 days problem (though not why light and dark was created before the sun)

If the sun suddenly disappears, would not light still emit from the stars?

See, stuff like that.

Not daylight and dark, morning and evening and sun and moon to mark them.

but the point was about those who DO accept a 14.5 billion year old universe but try to make it fit the Bible by dividing the age of the universe by 7. Which is denied by Genesis because it is talking of days with morning and evening.

Agreed. The morning/evening thing is a problem is a problem for those folks.

Quite. So trying to divide an (accepted) 13/14 billion year old universe into 7 and claiming that science agrees with a 7 day creation is doomed to fail. The Genesis -literalist at least doesn't do that, but rejects the old universe and insists that it was done in 6 days and it is all about 10,000 years old, total.

Now I did watch an explanation of how Hubble's constant can be used to calculate the age of the universe, but don't look to me to explain it. I'm sure it can be found online and I may try to find a quick summary to post.

Understood.

Your understanding is appreciated, good sir.

Though as I said, I expect it will just be dismissed as any science that contradicts the Bible is dismissed.

Just like anything that contradicts science is dismissed.

That isn't it at all. You see, that's projecting Dogmatic thinking onto science, which it doesn't do. And even Creationists know this as they say 'science is always changing its' mind'. Yes, because science does not dismiss anything that contradicts, but examines it to see whether it stacks up. If it does, and survives testing and verification, science changes its' mind. It is the self justifying excuses of Creationist non - science that doesn't stack up, doesn't survive examination and is not science (as was shown very clearly in a court of law - Kitzmiller vs. Dover) to claim that science dismisses anything that contradicts. Which is exactly what theist apologists do with anything that cuts across the Bible.

[We_Are_VENOM]

No. I refuted the point or argument that you were trying to make.

You did?

But science and not a small number of the religious, who respect science and even accept the evidence for evolution, disagree with you.

I'm fine with that.

True, but one is about the other. Evolution theory is about speciation. Your trying to make one not the other is wrongheaded or crafty or both.

True, speciation is about microevolution, not macroevolution. My beef is with macro, not micro.

I understand that you would like to think that it is all one big gumbo pot of the same stuff, but it isn't.

That is what the Creationists would call 'macro evolution' (once species changes to another).

No, one species to the other is micro, unless the species is evolving into an entirely different genus...and of course that is where things start to get flaky.

No. The difference is that one is attested in the fossil record, morphology and often in DNA. It is rejected by Evolution -deniers on the grounds that we can't see it happening before our eyes and by referring to some mysterious genetic barrier between species (which is 'Voodoo" science, if you like (1). The other IS accepted by Creationists as change within species, though we find it equally hard to observe that in real time as even that takes tens of thousands of years, such as horse evolution. The pepper moth experiment makes the case though some Creationists tried to debunk it, and the mantra 'It's still a fruit -fly' is their stumper.

But the evidence you have to deny is the kind that solves cold cases or crime scenes where there is no CCTV and we work from clues and forensic evidence. The morphology of birds proves that they came from four legged creatures. The fossil evidence shows that dinosaurs were the creatures they came from. The cetan sequence is compelling evidence that Whales evolved from a land animal. Tikttalic and other missing links show transitions that were predicted. Human 2 chromosome near - proves descent from a common ancestor with other primates.
There is compelling evidence for evolution, and nothing but denial, misunderstanding and misrepresentation on the creationist side.

With all due respect, sir. That is all bio-babble.

Canines produce canines, felines produce felines, etc.

Can you observe, experiment, or predict anything contrary to that? No, you can't.

Both you and I can point to a walking snake, a talking donkey, a sun standing still and disease being put down to evil spirits, in both our Bibles. But that doesn't make it true.

Yeah, but I have evidence outside of the Bible that corroborates the Bible.

Ok, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong, just that I would have to do a lot of work and posting to make my case.

I said you have my respect, didn't I?

I'll straighten you out whether you consult me or not.
Just to make sure you don't confuse anyone else.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Not daylight and dark, morning and evening and sun and moon to mark them.

You didn't specify which light at first, did you?

Quite. So trying to divide an (accepted) 13/14 billion year old universe into 7 and claiming that science agrees with a 7 day creation is doomed to fail. The Genesis -literalist at least doesn't do that, but rejects the old universe and insists that it was done in 6 days and it is all about 10,000 years old, total.

Okkk.

That isn't it at all. You see, that's projecting Dogmatic thinking onto science, which it doesn't do. And even Creationists know this as they say 'science is always changing its' mind'. Yes, because science does not dismiss anything that contradicts, but examines it to see whether it stacks up. If it does, and survives testing and verification, science changes its' mind. It is the self justifying excuses of Creationist non - science that doesn't stack up, doesn't survive examination and is not science (as was shown very clearly in a court of law - Kitzmiller vs. Dover) to claim that science dismisses anything that contradicts. Which is exactly what theist apologists do with anything that cuts across the Bible.

Ok, so now what?

[TRANSPONDER]

Not daylight and dark, morning and evening and sun and moon to mark them.

You didn't specify which light at first, did you?

As I recall, you did. Starlight, wasn't it? And i said that the light in genesis was described as daylight because we had morning and evening, dark and light and the sun and moon (apparently) made later to mark them. And thus not a 13 billion years divided into 7, which is the apologetic to fit science to Genesis.

Quite. So trying to divide an (accepted) 13/14 billion year old universe into 7 and claiming that science agrees with a 7 day creation is doomed to fail. The Genesis -literalist at least doesn't do that, but rejects the old universe and insists that it was done in 6 days and it is all about 10,000 years old, total.

Okkk.

That isn't it at all. You see, that's projecting Dogmatic thinking onto science, which it doesn't do. And even Creationists know this as they say 'science is always changing its' mind'. Yes, because science does not dismiss anything that contradicts, but examines it to see whether it stacks up. If it does, and survives testing and verification, science changes its' mind. It is the self justifying excuses of Creationist non - science that doesn't stack up, doesn't survive examination and is not science (as was shown very clearly in a court of law - Kitzmiller vs. Dover) to claim that science dismisses anything that contradicts. Which is exactly what theist apologists do with anything that cuts across the Bible.

Ok, so now what?

So we give Science some credit for being valid and describing with credibility the way things are and were and how they work. We do not dismiss it as being faith -based, opinion, or some kind of religion. It is a detection -method, using evidence and verification. Which Christian apologetics often attempts to do but runs up against science which then has to be dismissed if it can't be fiddled to fit the Bible.

Which is where we came in.

[We_Are_VENOM]

As I recall, you did. Starlight, wasn't it? And i said that the light in genesis was described as daylight because we had morning and evening, dark and light and the sun and moon (apparently) made later to mark them. And thus not a 13 billion years divided into 7, which is the apologetic to fit science to Genesis.

Yup. 7 literal days to me.

So we give Science some credit for being valid and describing with credibility the way things are and were and how they work. We do not dismiss it as being faith -based, opinion, or some kind of religion. It is a detection -method, using evidence and verification. Which Christian apologetics often attempts to do but runs up against science which then has to be dismissed if it can't be fiddled to fit the Bible.

Which is where we came in.

Hey buddy, question for ya.

What is science, to one who created and rules the universe?