S
Stone-yarder
Guest
"Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!"
http://www.icr.org/article/455/
http://www.icr.org/article/455/
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Evolution is in no way a religion despite what any one would like to say. Evolution is a scientific fact described by various theories, not a belief system. Atheism might be considered a belief system depending on how you look at it, but beliefs are opinions and facts are facts and there's no two ways about it.
Welcome shellhound to CF.net, and I hope you enjoy your time with us. I do have a question as to your faith in the scientific facts presented; why is there ever debate concerning them, and change when subsequent evidence is made available? Their reports have always sounded to me somewhat as a weather report; there's a fifty percent chance of something happening, and then if nothing does they can give the reason: of course it's a scientific reason.
Sorry to be pessimistic.
Thanks for the welcome :D It's because science doesn't have all of the answers and it just doesn't claim too, scientists realize that they're not going to get it 100% right; the goal is to try and get it as right as possible. As new evidence comes along theories have to evolve to fit the new facts that we might not have previously had. In science you have to understand that you'll never truly know the exact answer and chances are if you claim to know it you're either wrong or lying. For example, we used to believe that fly's simply appeared out of nowhere on dead carcasses (spontaneous generation); this was something that we observed and believed it to be true. After studying it more however we realized that it wasn't the case and there was a logical reason for it, it's the exact same way now but generally on a bigger more advanced scale thanks to the progress we've had in science this last century.Welcome shellhound to CF.net, and I hope you enjoy your time with us. I do have a question as to your faith in the scientific facts presented; why is there ever debate concerning them, and change when subsequent evidence is made available? Their reports have always sounded to me somewhat as a weather report; there's a fifty percent chance of something happening, and then if nothing does they can give the reason: of course it's a scientific reason.
Sorry to be pessimistic.
Grazer
Member
Wouldn't naturalism be atheistic? It doesn't just not comment, it excludes it by its very definition and name.
Dumac_Dwarfking
Member
Personally I don't see the parallel between believing in evolution and faith. Faith is belief in something you don't fully understand, and committing to that belief (for whatever reason) regardless of what new information comes to light. As far as evolution goes, it's believing in something that has garnered insurmountable evidence and is largely considered fact. Up to this point, I can follow how a religious man or woman could see the parallel between believing this and believing a religion, but the difference is due to the fact that within evolution, within any science, these ideas, hypothesis, and theories are constantly held up to scrutiny, and (despite how unlikely this may be) if there ever came a time that they did not stand up to this scrutiny, they would immediately be removed as viable solution. Science is not held up by "faith", but by the consistency of accurate data, by always being viewed from a position of doubt (not presumed accuracy), and by making testable predictions for this idea to live up to. Nothing in science is "assumed", nothing is believed out of desire for it to be true, everything in science only exists on the foundation of its evidence. If science was "faith", then it would continue to stand even if that foundation was removed, this would never be the case. That being said, it's largely irrelevant whether or not evolution is viewed as a religion. Labelling it does not negate it's authority as a fact. A fact remains a fact whatever people choose to call it, and regardless of how many people believe it.
Any knowledge that presumes there is no force that is observant and yet unobservable (unseen by direct observation) is inclined toward dis-cluding such things from consideration. God has created our world in such a manner that people are able to conclude that He does not exist. Those in darkness can pretend there is no light (out there) if they want. This does not change the facts. I personally feel that there is insurmountable evidence for the Love of God being shown to us even through His creative acts. We can see it in the detail. To me, it is undeniable. That does not mean it is understandable. How could God, who is Just, sacrifice His only begotten Son, on the chance that some might believe and turn from ignorance toward understanding and depart from evil?
Claudya
Member
Depends on how strictly it is used.
Dumac_Dwarfking
Member
Every man sees life through his own eyes alone, even if the Christian God were real, he said that man would have free will. Through ones own life experience they set the bar on what counts as "evidence", and I've no doubt that in your life God has reached that bar; and there's nothing wrong with that, but as far as Science is concerned, evidence has been defined to a strict outline that excludes that which cannot be observed, measured or calculated. Without this outline anything at all could be postulated as true, and science would be mostly presumption with very little fact.
I understand that to be the reason that "science" is silent on questions about our Maker.
Dumac_Dwarfking
Member
Absolutely. God, by his very nature is unobservable, outside of space of time, incalculable, immeasurable. Science in no way supports the possibility of a maker, but on the other hand it in no way negates it. For myself, the fact that nothing pertaining to him can be observed makes me conclude he doesn't really need to be there, or perhaps isn't what religion says he is (ie - intelligent/self aware/all-knowing), but other people can have completely different ideas than myself without having to ignore the science.
Welcome shellhound to CF.net, and I hope you enjoy your time with us. I do have a question as to your faith in the scientific facts presented; why is there ever debate concerning them, and change when subsequent evidence is made available? Their reports have always sounded to me somewhat as a weather report; there's a fifty percent chance of something happening, and then if nothing does they can give the reason: of course it's a scientific reason.
Sorry to be pessimistic.
Science is constantly changing, and we're constantly replacing old answers with new answers. Does this mean everything that was replaced was completely wrong?
Isaac Asimov wrote an essay titled "Relativity of Wrong".
Here's a quote that sums everything up fairly nicely. Keep in mind the Earth is not a perfect sphere, but an oblate spheroid.
-Relativity of Wrong, by Isaac Asimov
Vaccine
Member
Phillip Johnson identified the bait and switch tactic. Some will start with the observable, testable and repeatable such as peppered moth, the bait. And then switch to the unobserved, unrepeatable and untestable such as a common ancestor.
Philip Johnson also identified the difference between science such as the theory of evolution, and philosophy such as Darwinisn, naturalism, materialism. Some will do the bait and switch with the theory to support their philosophy, but then fend off any criticism of their philosophy by claiming it to be an attack on the theory or science or just reason in general. I saw him speak 10 years ago and he really opened my eyes to what was happening. What science says the theory is for and can accomplish is one thing, what others say about it is another story. Philip Johnson gave some good advice, always ask yourself if you are discussing philosophy, science, or pseudo science when talking to an evolutionist, they will effortlessly switch between them.
Philip Johnson also identified the difference between science such as the theory of evolution, and philosophy such as Darwinisn, naturalism, materialism. Some will do the bait and switch with the theory to support their philosophy, but then fend off any criticism of their philosophy by claiming it to be an attack on the theory or science or just reason in general. I saw him speak 10 years ago and he really opened my eyes to what was happening. What science says the theory is for and can accomplish is one thing, what others say about it is another story. Philip Johnson gave some good advice, always ask yourself if you are discussing philosophy, science, or pseudo science when talking to an evolutionist, they will effortlessly switch between them.
B
Brother Mike
Guest
I think this sums it up. Based on just theories (Not 100% proven fact) that is believed by faith. A theory is just that and always will be just that. Something you see, and fill in the dots on the rest.
So, you have to take that belief to see if it works with other things, based on faith that the theory might, or might not be right. That is faith.
If faith, then religion, but religion based on what little is thought to be seen, Because a theory is just a belief, based on something thought to be seen.
Mike.
.
When you look at the fossil record, with the microscope turned up high, there is nothing except energy...
According to the BBC, in their video, Do We Really Exist? scientists can't even prove we have a physical body!
The BBC claims we might only exist as computer memory.
My Bible says, God made us suddenly....
I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass.
Is. 48:3
It takes a lot more faith than i have, to believe in a fossil record, when biologists can't even prove we have physical bodies.
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that THINGS WHICH ARE SEEN WERE NOT MADE OF THINGS THAT DO APPEAR.
He. 11:3
I don't believe we exist as a computer memory.... I do believe we only exist in The Word of God.
Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, WHEN as yet THERE WAS NONE OF THEM.
Pslams 139:16
.