Should science be secular?

[tqualey]

Shame on you Wanstronian! This is really a distortion of what was said.

Let’s play this again - but, this time with feeling!

You seem to be unaware of the logical error involved in setting up your desired conclusion as a premise in your argument. Unless you understand the basic principles of logic, you’re not really in a strong position to debate. To spell it out: saying “God exists, therefore Revelation is true” doesn’t prove anything other than that you are unable to think outside your superstitious dogma.

First let’s use the Scientific Method to get to where we need to be. We start off with a hypothesis, e.g., “God created everything from nothing” in our case … and, “There is no God” in your case. Then we research the literature (and even thought you have totally dismissed the Bible - you really have thrown out an excellent source of history) and find some really compelling arguments from noted philosophers - and natural scientists - who concluded that they did not make the universe and it is obviously here … and things with order and pattern just don’t happen to keep on going on with order and pattern, so there must be a Order / Pattern Maker. And, your position or response is … “Ain’t so!”

Then we conduct experiments to see we can see and note the results - we can’t create a ‘Big Bang’ and ‘Primordial Soup’ is still a bit iffy - but, just where did all of this stuff come from? We conclude that God made it (the patterns He used are His business and His process - the essence of the idea is that nothing could possibly happen without His direct intervention.) And, your posiiton … “It just happened! Out of chaos comes order.” We formulate a conclusion based on the evidence we have seen from what we call the Natural Law - and, we firmly conclude that there is a God. And, you conclude … “There is no God!” Merely saying that you need more ‘proof’ is a delaying tactic - in reality, there will never be ENOUGH proof for you. Now, I guess you believe in the existence of Black Holes in the universe - do you realize that NONE have been measured. Yet, a lot of folks believe in them anyway. Of course a Black Hole has yet to demand a moral commitment from anyone… unlike God Who demands we first acknowledge Him.

I don’t give zero credibility to recorded historic events where the record is believable and verifiable. The bible doesn’t meet those criteria though.

And I made the point that I assign credibility to a discipline that has shown, time and time again, that it provides the best (most independent and verifiable; self-correcting) explanation of our environment. The fact that some theories are overturned from time to time is not a weakness, as you seem to think - it’s a huge strength. It means we don’t all get bogged down in clearly erroneous dogma.

I have to hand it to you on this onbe - making a virtue out of necessity is a real gem Wanstronian! But, don’t look now … current establihsed theories are already changing! And, what does this mean? Well, actually this means we do not have the Truth - just a small (and ever-changing part of the truth). This is fine as far as our finite science goes - but, you don’t want to come up short when you shed this mortal coil!

Anyway, as you seem to be unable to meet my challenge, I consider the point proved. Science IS secular - that’s why it’s called “science” not “guessing.”

There you go again - jumping to conclusions - and ‘awarding’ yourself recognition that has not been earned. Shame! In realiity, Wanstronian your position has not been proven, it has been refuted - and, if you look around, it has resided on the grabage heap of failed ideas! “Science” starts out with both a guess and the honesty to engage in inquiry. Science does not seek the Truth - only current udnerstanding of realities preceivedf. God is immeasueable, yet you would try and reduce Him to that which can be measured.
God bless

 

[wanstronian]

Revelation leads us to God, not the other way around. Revelation is history, in it God communicates. That is how we have come to understand the attributes of God.

It doesn’t matter which way round you put it - you’ve inserted your desired conclusion as part of your argument. This is invalid.

If there was no history I could agree with you. But there is. We have Revelation.

Perhaps you can give an example of Revelation that is historically verifiable, and also shows that the source is God? We’re getting off the thread subject here, but I’m happy to discuss your proposition.

We need to work towards an assigned value of credibility. Give it your best shot. 10% is true? 20%

I just can’t say - it would be a total guess. I don’t know the bible well enough to comment. Some bits are probably true, many bits are probably ‘filler’ and it wouldn’t matter if they were true or not. There’s no evidence that any of the documented miracles actually happened, and we know for certain that the Genesis account of the creation of the world doesn’t tally with our robust physical theories, and that the Genesis account of the creation of species is just plain wrong.

There’s more than one way to quantify truth. Percentage of total statements in the bible? Or percentage of key events such as the resurrection, walking on water and so on? Split between Old and New Testament?

But I’m curious - how is this working towards the validity of inserting religious belief into scientific endeavour?

 

[wanstronian]

Shame on you Wanstronian! This is really a distortion of what was said.

Let’s play this again - but, this time with feeling!

There you go again - jumping to conclusions - and ‘awarding’ yourself recognition that has not been earned. Shame! In realiity, Wanstronian your position has not been proven, it has been refuted - and, if you look around, it has resided on the grabage heap of failed ideas! “Science” starts out with both a guess and the honesty to engage in inquiry. Science does not seek the Truth - only current udnerstanding of realities preceivedf. God is immeasueable, yet you would try and reduce Him to that which can be measured.
God bless

Tom, you are welcome to your opinion. You have made many common theistic assumptions in your comments, but to be honest, the main reason I’m not going to engage with you is that I can’t be bothered to deal with your kooky font. It’s difficult to read, fits less text on a page, and it’s a nightmare to try and insert my responses without constantly changing both font type and size.

Suffice to say that your objections have been repeated many times on this forum and others, and don’t really stand up to scrutiny.

No scientific theory in the world posits God as an intrinsic part. Therefore the onus is on those who believe that religion should be part of science, to show how the current theories are invalid and how the insertion of God makes them valid. It’s been a few days since I invited anybody on this thread to do this, and nobody has rocked up.

The facts are these:

1. Science is secular. As stated above, no scientific theory involves God.
2. Nobody can demonstrate that any particular scientific theory is invalid due to a lack of God.
3. Science is not perfect, but it’s the best thing we’ve got if we want objective, predictive, independent results.
4. Science inherently corrects itself as new information becomes available.

By contrast, religion inherently rejects new information that contradicts its dogma (which is contradictory in itself!), only grudgingly moving aside when to do otherwise would be madness. Witness ID as a poor attempt at making religious dogma fit the established facts of evolution.

 

[wanstronian]

No! History’s greatest natural scientists, such as Nicole Oresme and Newton, were theologians or at least had a profound interest in theological matters, like Einstein.

Do any of Einstein’s theories, or Newton’s, posit God as a vital element? Should E = mc2 really be E=Gmc2, where ‘G’ is ‘God?’ How would you falsify such an inclusion?

Pope John Paul II wrote in his 1998 encyclical Fides et Ratio 76. that “faith purifies reason” (fides purificat rationem) and “liberates [it] from presumption” ([fides] rationem a nimia confidentia exsolvit); consequently, secular science—i.e., faithless science—is impure with some error and presumptuous.

…according to the most prominent theist of the time. The remarks of a pope trying to clip his religion onto the runaway success of scientific achievement should really be taken with a pinch of salt. Particularly the statement “liberates it from presumption” makes me laugh - all religions are based on presumption!

Still, the proof is in the pudding. Stating that religion should be part of science is one thing. Demonstrating its objective value is quite another, and the challenge remains open.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Wanstronian,

I have given you the Scientific Method for evaluating any idea - and you have rejected it. You flasely claim to be honoring science while obviously being confounded by its methodology. Based on your repititious statements, I am guessing that this is all you have to offer. And, really, that is fine.

Your choice on who you chose to engage is yours and yours alone - but, if you comment of this or any other thread be advised that your mantra of, “There is no God” will be challenged at every turn. So, be prepared to be bothered and challenged and refuted.

Tom, you are welcome to your opinion. You have made many common theistic assumptions in your comments, but to be honest, the main reason I’m not going to engage with you is that I can’t be bothered to deal with your kooky font. It’s difficult to read, fits less text on a page, and it’s a nightmare to try and insert my responses without constantly changing both font type and size.

Suffice to say that your objections have been repeated many times on this forum and others, and don’t really stand up to scrutiny.

This is where you fail. Your failure to acknowledge a Power greater then that which you can imagine limits the scope of your reasoning. It is a shame that you did not take more seriously the objections posted by others earlier on. Is your system so stunted that only items you can conceive exist? There are natural phenomenon that have yet to be imagined - and will be discovered creating entirely new views of reality - but, your ‘world-view’ can not even handle that aspect of physical reality. I mention this to show how poorly equiped you are to assess worldly things, so that when spiritual realities are presented, you cave in with your mantra. This is hardly a scientific approach.

No scientific theory in the world posits God as an intrinsic part.

To this best of my knowledge, this is true!

Therefore the onus is on those who believe that religion should be part of science, to show how the current theories are invalid and how the insertion of God makes them valid. It’s been a few days since I invited anybody on this thread to do this, and nobody has rocked up.

Let’s try this: Sir Isaac Newton was confronted with realities he preceived but could not properly address because simple math, algebra and geometry did not give him the access he wanted or needed. It is not that these mathematical tools were bad - but, they lacked the necessary power he sought - so, he invented calculus to address his needs. Trying to address the cosmos as though it always existed is one idea - but, it begs the question was there something or anything before. This is a question that is totally unanswerable and can only be addressed using other than scientific tools. Had Newton stayed with the mathematical tools of his time, he would not have gotten as far as he did. I submit that in the search for Reality, science only offers finite tools. Saying the Reality does not exist because of the limitation imposed by these tools we use just falls short of a genuinely open mind.

While the unaided mind can come to a determination of a Creator, there would be no way to know of a Loving God Who cares for all of Creation.

The facts are these:

1. Science is secular. As stated above, no scientific theory involves God.

True.

1. Nobody can demonstrate that any particular scientific theory is invalid due to a lack of God.
   Poorly worded - unless you want to interject your bias again. Let’s try: “No one can demonstrate that any particular scientific theiro is invalid because it does not involve God.”
2. Science is not perfect, but it’s the best thing we’ve got if we want objective, predictive, independent results.

True.

1. Science inherently corrects itself as new information becomes available.
   True.

By contrast, religion inherently rejects new information that contradicts its dogma (which is contradictory in itself!),

There you go again! It is really hard to remain objective, isn’t it? You have simply posited an unsubstantiated statement trying to disguise it as a fact. It would be best to get a firmer grip on the distinction between a hypothesis and an assumption. Your post is basically a steady stream of assumptions - prejudiced by your mantra of, “There is no God”.

only grudgingly moving aside when to do otherwise would be madness.

If I understand your position correctly, the entire position is madness because it can not be reduced by science. This is truly a myopic view of life when we can’t really measure or accurately quantify emotions or individual personal experiences that are blended in some way with other experiences.

Witness ID as a poor attempt at making religious dogma fit the established facts of evolution.

Continue with this illogical attempt to measue God by the criteria of finite science and you will be confronted at every turn. Stay on this list and I will do my best to point out the illogic of the path you have chosen for twisting science into a vehicle to maintain your own choice for Godlessness.

 

[buffalo]

It doesn’t matter which way round you put it - you’ve inserted your desired conclusion as part of your argument. This is invalid.

Perhaps you can give an example of Revelation that is historically verifiable, and also shows that the source is God? We’re getting off the thread subject here, but I’m happy to discuss your proposition.

I just can’t say - it would be a total guess. I don’t know the bible well enough to comment. Some bits are probably true, many bits are probably ‘filler’ and it wouldn’t matter if they were true or not. There’s no evidence that any of the documented miracles actually happened, and we know for certain that the Genesis account of the creation of the world doesn’t tally with our robust physical theories, and that the Genesis account of the creation of species is just plain wrong.

There’s more than one way to quantify truth. Percentage of total statements in the bible? Or percentage of key events such as the resurrection, walking on water and so on? Split between Old and New Testament?

But I’m curious - how is this working towards the validity of inserting religious belief into scientific endeavour?

The conclusion was not made in a vacuum. The conclusion is based on historical writings and experience, which a priori you reject.

You admit you do not know enough about the Bible. What you do know and where did you get that info from? Ever consider your sources could be wrong? Or would you rather not venture into it because it could well enhance your understanding and you would be forced to change your position?

You continually misrepresent my position. My position is simply man’s reasoning of observations must be done in the light of truth. Revelation gives us access to knowledge from outside our frame which we cannot get otherwise. Science by its own definition is limited to our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time.

I would be happy to discuss the accuracy of the bible and its truth content.

First verse of Genesis.

In the beginning - time
God created the heavens - space
and the earth - matter.

True? or False? (at this point I am not asking you to admit God. Just whether science agrees with time, space and matter)

 

[wanstronian]

Hi, Wanstronian,

I have given you the Scientific Method for evaluating any idea - and you have rejected it.

Have I? Where did I do that then?

You flasely claim to be honoring science while obviously being confounded by its methodology. Based on your repititious statements, I am guessing that this is all you have to offer. And, really, that is fine.

Er, thank you. I think I understand it quite well, actually. But you clearly know me better than I know myself…

Your choice on who you chose to engage is yours and yours alone - but, if you comment of this or any other thread be advised that your mantra of, “There is no God” will be challenged at every turn. So, be prepared to be bothered and challenged and refuted.

I expect to be challenged, and the only thing that really bothers me is people persisting in making assertions for which they have zero evidence. I haven’t been refuted so far, so I’m not expecting it to start any time soon, if I’m honest.

This is where you fail. Your failure to acknowledge a Power greater then that which you can imagine limits the scope of your reasoning. It is a shame that you did not take more seriously the objections posted by others earlier on. Is your system so stunted that only items you can conceive exist? There are natural phenomenon that have yet to be imagined - and will be discovered creating entirely new views of reality - but, your ‘world-view’ can not even handle that aspect of physical reality. I mention this to show how poorly equiped you are to assess worldly things, so that when spiritual realities are presented, you cave in with your mantra. This is hardly a scientific approach.

I absolutely acknowledge that there are powers greater than I can conceive. I cannot conceive of the power of the sun, for example. I cannot really conceive of the vast tracts of time since the birth of the universe, nor the immense distances involved in our universe. I do not acknowledge a timeless, omnimaxial intelligent entity that is responsible for that universe. I acknowledge the concept, just not the reality. Why not? No evidence.

This is an absolutely scientific approach. Believe what is believeable, require evidence for claims that are as extraordinary as those made by theists. If no evidence is forthcoming, then neither is my belief.

Let’s try this: Sir Isaac Newton was confronted with realities he preceived but could not properly address because simple math, algebra and geometry did not give him the access he wanted or needed. It is not that these mathematical tools were bad - but, they lacked the necessary power he sought - so, he invented calculus to address his needs. Trying to address the cosmos as though it always existed is one idea - but, it begs the question was there something or anything before. This is a question that is totally unanswerable and can only be addressed using other than scientific tools. Had Newton stayed with the mathematical tools of his time, he would not have gotten as far as he did. I submit that in the search for Reality, science only offers finite tools. Saying the Reality does not exist because of the limitation imposed by these tools we use just falls short of a genuinely open mind.

Bit of a false analogy, that one. Newton may have invented calculus, but this is hardly the same thing as saying that belief in the supernatural as a tool of discovery, is just as valid. I hope I don’t have to point out to you why this is so.

While the unaided mind can come to a determination of a Creator, there would be no way to know of a Loving God Who cares for all of Creation.

Absolutely true. Science works, with or without God. God is, apparently, outside science, so no way of detecting him directly. Also no circumstantial evidence for his existence that can’t be explained another way. No evidence for God, no need for God. Therefore, no reason to suspect he exists. Science is not concerned with a 'Loving God who cares for all Creation." That’s not what science is for. We seem to agree on one thing at least - the secularism of science.

Poorly worded - unless you want to interject your bias again. Let’s try: “No one can demonstrate that any particular scientific theiro is invalid because it does not involve God.”

Okay, it was poorly phrased. I agree with what you say - that was my original intent. I’m okay with your accusation of interjecting bias - my bias is fully justified so I don’t take it as a slur.

 

[wanstronian]

There you go again! It is really hard to remain objective, isn’t it? You have simply posited an unsubstantiated statement trying to disguise it as a fact. It would be best to get a firmer grip on the distinction between a hypothesis and an assumption. Your post is basically a steady stream of assumptions - prejudiced by your mantra of, “There is no God”.

You may claim this, but what is, for example, Young-Earth Creationism if not a blatant rejection of established scientific fact? I don’t claim that all religious people reject all science - but there is certainly a groundswell of resistance to Evolution which is against all common sense.

If I understand your position correctly, the entire position is madness because it can not be reduced by science. This is truly a myopic view of life when we can’t really measure or accurately quantify emotions or individual personal experiences that are blended in some way with other experiences.

Something of a non sequitur here. My position is that no evidence - direct or indirect - can be shown for the existence of God. Therefore I choose not to believe in him. Putting emotion et al in the same category is fallacious.

Continue with this illogical attempt to measue God by the criteria of finite science and you will be confronted at every turn.

Of course I will - I don’t expect you theists to be rational about it!

But I’m curious - if not by science, how do you propose to measure God? I’d be interested to understand what objective, consistent, predictive, falsifiable, results-based methodology you’d use. For these criteria are surely necessary to produce reliable, believable results.

Stay on this list and I will do my best to point out the illogic of the path you have chosen for twisting science into a vehicle to maintain your own choice for Godlessness.

Be my guest, but please do something about your font. It’s a pita and adds no value to the discussion.

I haven’t twisted science at all. As I’ve point out, and as you’ve agreed, science and religion are not intrinsically connected. Science is incognisant of religion. That’s the way it must be.

 

[wanstronian]

The conclusion was not made in a vacuum. The conclusion is based on historical writings and experience, which a priori you reject.

You admit you do not know enough about the Bible. What you do know and where did you get that info from? Ever consider your sources could be wrong? Or would you rather not venture into it because it could well enhance your understanding and you would be forced to change your position?

You continually misrepresent my position. My position is simply man’s reasoning of observations must be done in the light of truth. Revelation gives us access to knowledge from outside our frame which we cannot get otherwise. Science by its own definition is limited to our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time.

I would be happy to discuss the accuracy of the bible and its truth content.

First verse of Genesis.

In the beginning - time
God created the heavens - space
and the earth - matter.

True? or False? (at this point I am not asking you to admit God. Just whether science agrees with time, space and matter)

Get back to you later - I need to do some work!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Wanstronian,

Let me address just one of your issues. Actually, I think that it gets at least close to the argument you are making here.

But I’m curious - if not by science, how do you propose to measure God? I’d be interested to understand what objective, consistent, predictive, falsifiable, results-based methodology you’d use. For these criteria are surely necessary to produce reliable, believable results.

Now, considering how you have totally dismissed the Bible as a reference source acceptable you … just bear with me for a moment…while I get Psalm 8 for you.

4
When I see your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and stars that you set in place–
5
What are humans that you are mindful of them, mere mortals that you care for them?
6
Yet you have made them little less than a god, crowned them with glory and honor.
7
You have given them rule over the works of your hands, put all things at their feet:
8
All sheep and oxen, even the beasts of the field,
9
The birds of the air, the fish of the sea, and whatever swims the paths of the seas.
10
O LORD, our Lord, how awesome is your name through all the earth!

People have been working with this question of yours for some time…even in the Bible Guess what? It really has no answer that is measurable… or even comprehensible.

If we, as early humans looking into the sky, thought the moon and sun and planets were a long way off - as measured in miles - we had a dramatic awakening when we saw objects much further out and had to change to light years. Instead of writing all of those zeros we had to move to exponents just so we did not fill a written page with zeros!! Then we had to make other adjustments - just to express ourselves! For example: a light year is defined as exactly 9,460,730,472,580.8 km (according to Wiki) But, there are much bigger things much farther out. For example,

"One kilolight-year, abbreviated “kly”, is one thousand light-years, or about 307 parsecs. Kilolight-years are typically used to measure distances between parts of a galaxy.

One megalight-year, abbreviated “Mly”, is one million light-years, or about 306,600 parsecs. Megalight-years are typically used to measure distances between neighbouring galaxies and galaxy clusters.

One gigalight-year, abbreviation “Gly”, is one billion (109) light-years—one of the largest distance measures used. Gigalight-years are typically used to measure distances to supergalactic structures, including quasars and the Great Wall.

According to Wiki the distance from earth to the end of the visible universe is " 46.5 gigalight-years in any direction". In reality we take this on … faith! This totally incomprehensive figure we work with because it makes sense in a whole system of things that we have fit together. But, note: this is measurable and is a perfect tool for science (even though our truly finite brains can not do much with numbers like this).

You did not like my Newton/calculus example - and that is a shame (I spent a little time on that … thought it would get at least a smirk… but, I’ll get to the point). Science - with recognized limitations - brought Newtwo to a particular place in his reasoning. Newton pushed ahead and expanded the limits of science. But, we are still wroking with a self-limiting tool. Scientists since Newton have pushed farther still - and yet, we all realize that while this is the best thing we have to try and determine truth - it is still limited.

Would you use a hammer to remove an electrical face plate when a screwdriver would be the most appropriate tool. Hammers, like science, can do a lot, but, there are other disciplines - just like there are other tools. Science can tell us nothing about art appreciation. It can tells us about the pigments, or the stone or the weight of the work of art - but, why some are better than others remains a mystery. This is really part of our human condition - and one where if we think science can take us all the way, we will be sadly disappointed when the Conductor says, “End of the line.” and you still have mroe distance to travel.

Even though you have effectively measured your god as not existing and having no dimensions, mine is without limits. Discoursing with someone about the proof for the existence of God has been going on for a long time - just look around to ancient history - and there are gods all over the place! Man recognized that he did not make this and someone(s) did. They did not need any futher proof then we need to prove that human love exists (even though it too is not measureable). The effects of love can be measured - but, not love itself. Do you hear people saying, “There is no love!” Unfortunately, you do - but, you know they are wrong.

And, since you are on this list, maybe you would like someone to share this God with you. Let me share a story with you and then I will go. There was this man - who apparently was having a very difficult time in his life - and he wanted to know how much Christ loved him as he looked at a picture of Christ. In his mind, he heard Christ say, “I love you this much” as He extended both His arms and was nailed to the Cross.

God bless

 

[Geremia]

Do any of Einstein’s theories, or Newton’s, posit God as a vital element? Should E = mc2 really be E=Gmc2, where ‘G’ is ‘God?’ How would you falsify such an inclusion?

God cannot be reduced to a number. That is like reducing infinity to a natural number. Modern physics by definition studies material beings, and God is immaterial. I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.

…according to the most prominent theist of the time. The remarks of a pope trying to clip his religion onto the runaway success of scientific achievement should really be taken with a pinch of salt.

How exactly is he clipping “his religion onto the runaway success of scientific achievement?” Fides et Ratio rightfully respects the autonomy of philosophy and the sciences based on natural reason; just look at how frequently he uses the word “autonomy.”

Think about this: What is the end of science? What does it ultimately strive to seek? If nothing, then how is it not just demonstrating circularly, e.g., demonstrating A in terms of B which in turn is demonstrated in terms of C which is demonstrated in terms of A which in turn i is demonstrated in terms of B, etc.? This is akin to saying “A exists,” which we already knew. So what. This science would either be useless or a sophistic illusion of knowledge. If the chain of demonstration ends, the end must be God because God is the only uncreated being on Whose being everything else that exists relies.

Read this by Card. Newman on the necessity of theology for true knowledge.

Particularly the statement “liberates it from presumption” makes me laugh - all religions are based on presumption!

The same could be said for, e.g., relativists (those why deny absolute Truth) because they cannot prove that truth is relative; they presume it as dogma. At least theists have some evidence and reason to support their dogma; relativists have none (as far as I know).

Also, faith is not presumption. That is the whole point of the harmony between faith and reason. If you have no reason, how do you know in what you have faith? You can’t. This is the sense in which reason aids faith. Faith aids reason in supplying it with knowledge hard to obtain (though not necessarily impossible) with natural reason alone.

It all boils down to this: We aren’t gods. Our intellects are very dim. What we don’t know is vastly greater than what we know, which is good if you’re a scientist! You won’t lose your job!

Still, the proof is in the pudding. Stating that religion should be part of science is one thing. Demonstrating its objective value is quite another, and the challenge remains open.

The question really is whether you want to live an eternal life or die an eternal death; you either have faith in the Source of life or you don’t. It is indeed “open;” it’s up to your freewill.

 

[buffalo]

Unnatural Science

Deconstructing science is a fool’s game. In the ’90s, literary critics used to try. They’d argue that science is a system of metaphors, complete with a style and an ideology, rather than the royal road to the truth. They were laughed at as cultural relativists, posers high on Gaul*oises and nut jobs who didn’t believe in gravity.

Science writers play rough. They like hoaxes, humiliations and Oxbridge-style showdowns that let them use words like “claptrap” and “gibberish.” There’s a reason people don’t call themselves deconstructionists and pick fights with science anymore. The old battle is won: books called “The Science of X” fly off shelves, while “The Culture of” books are remaindered.
So why have I been thinking it’s time to don the old Derridean cloak and re-enter the unwinnable science-culture battle?

more…

 

[hugh_r.miller]

Hi, Hugh,

Just two quick questions for clarification purposes…

1.) What is “thesistic evolution”? and

2.) What is it about “thesistic evolution” that would make it a ‘fairy tale’?

God bless

Good questions!

I’m a research chemist specializing in electrochemistry and now paleontology and radiochemistry. So when a Catholic theologian priest professor from Georgetown University was quoted on radio in the 1960’s saying that as a Catholic you can believe in evolution of life from a lower form as long as you believe that God infused a soul into that evolving species – That to me is Theistic evolution. So at that time in my life, since scientists said that our ancestors were associated with African ape-like creatures and a Catholic priest theologian said that we could so believe I thought no more about it; case closed.

Then a few years later an agnostic fellow research physical chemist friend, who had migrated from England, Dr. David. E. L. D. to join our research facililty loaned me his copies of Emmanuel Vilikovski’s books on catastrophism. He told me how he laughed when he heard that fishermen nets had pulled up a strange fish called the Coelacanth. The Coelacanth was supposedly our fish ancestor as it had been found in a specific strata indicated ages in the 70 to 300 millions of years.
amnh.org/exhibitions/expeditions/treasure_fossil/Treasures/Coelacanth/coelacan.html?sea. Wow, what a change that made in my attitude toward science. From then on I decided to do my own literature research and and not rely on the propaganda eminating from academia even if it be a famous priest-theologian. I would heartily recommend that approach to all on this thread.

To make a long story short starting in 1982 I was finally able to begin my own lab and field reserach in cooperation with many other scientists which included direct radiocarbon dating of any fossils containing carbon. Thus in 2009 I was able to present a power point presentation at a conference held at the National Research Council of Italy which showed that dinosaurs from Texas to Alaska were only 1000’s of years old based on C-14 dating of their bones as well as many other discoveries.

Regarding your second question, What is it about Theistic Evolution that would make it a Fairy Tale? Answer: TE was established within the Catholic Church and other denominations by modernists theologians et al. who believed in the claims of evolutionary science so as to allow a compromise between the latest version of evolution of life from non-life to try and show that there is no conflict between science and the Catholic faith. [Evolution theories have been around for 1000’s of years which the early church fathers challenged with pious vigor.] But since those millions and billions of years do not exist all the claims and assumptions of evolutionary anthropology and paleontology from bacteria to fish to ape to man is a fairy tale not worthy of discussion on this thread. I again recommend discussion of the contents of Dr. Larry Azar’s book*, Evolution and Other Fairy Tales** in light of the fact that the millions and billions of years do not exist. Such a study will take you right back to the basics of what Christ, the apostles and doctors of the church taught and make us Catholics uncompromising with the forces of evil that are running rampant in our society including abortion on demand, marriage other than between a man and woman, ad nauseum. Proponents of such sick idea justify their devilish practices themselves by claiming evolution is a fact. Lord have mercy on us.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Hugh,

Let me tell you about my experience with organic chem … had not chemistry’s answer to the Guardian Angel helped I would not have scraped through and finish the course with the lowest imaginable “C”! Down deep I took the pledge: “I would never willingly enter a Chem lab again!” LOL

Now, about the fairy tale bit - and, really, I am being serious on this. You seem to conclude that God can not have had a hand in the Theistic Evolution theory because there was not enough time. What kind of time frame do you think He needs? There are groups (and, I am not in any of them…) who are convinced that all of creation took place in six 24-hour days. And, there there are others (…yep, I’m in this one…) that think it took billions of years to go from Bib Bang to where we are now. And while the long-time frame work appears to me, I am not going to fight, bleed and die over it. Put any number of years (big or small) and for whatever reason - and I won’t argue … as long as you say that God is responsible for it all… I won’t say a word.

Does it really matter - all of today’s theories are all over the place - which theory you subscribe to? Either you believe God created everything out of nothing - or you don’t … and the theories can be divided out accordingly. I do not want to sound cynical about this - but, the issue as I see it really only involves God (He is either the Creator or He isn’t). After this is resolved, then we really discuss scientific reasons to strengthen a particular theory.

God bless

Good questions!

I’m a research chemist specializing in electrochemistry and now paleontology and radiochemistry. So when a Catholic theologian priest professor from Georgetown University was quoted on radio in the 1960’s saying that as a Catholic you can believe in evolution of life from a lower form as long as you believe that God infused a soul into that evolving species – That to me is Theistic evolution. So at that time in my life, since scientists said that our ancestors were associated with African ape-like creatures and a Catholic priest theologian said that we could so believe I thought no more about it; case closed.

Then a few years later an agnostic fellow research physical chemist friend, who had migrated from England, Dr. David. E. L. D. to join our research facililty loaned me his copies of Emmanuel Vilikovski’s books on catastrophism. He told me how he laughed when he heard that fishermen nets had pulled up a strange fish called the Coelacanth. The Coelacanth was supposedly our fish ancestor as it had been found in a specific strata indicated ages in the 70 to 300 millions of years.
amnh.org/exhibitions/expeditions/treasure_fossil/Treasures/Coelacanth/coelacan.html?sea. Wow, what a change that made in my attitude toward science. From then on I decided to do my own literature research and and not rely on the propaganda eminating from academia even if it be a famous priest-theologian. I would heartily recommend that approach to all on this thread.

To make a long story short starting in 1982 I was finally able to begin my own lab and field reserach in cooperation with many other scientists which included direct radiocarbon dating of any fossils containing carbon. Thus in 2009 I was able to present a power point presentation at a conference held at the National Research Council of Italy which showed that dinosaurs from Texas to Alaska were only 1000’s of years old based on C-14 dating of their bones as well as many other discoveries.

Regarding your second question, What is it about Theistic Evolution that would make it a Fairy Tale? Answer: TE was established within the Catholic Church and other denominations by modernists theologians et al. who believed in the claims of evolutionary science so as to allow a compromise between the latest version of evolution of life from non-life to try and show that there is no conflict between science and the Catholic faith. [Evolution theories have been around for 1000’s of years which the early church fathers challenged with pious vigor.] But since those millions and billions of years do not exist all the claims and assumptions of evolutionary anthropology and paleontology from bacteria to fish to ape to man is a fairy tale not worthy of discussion on this thread. I again recommend discussion of the contents of Dr. Larry Azar’s book**, Evolution and Other Fairy Tales** in light of the fact that the millions and billions of years do not exist. Such a study will take you right back to the basics of what Christ, the apostles and doctors of the church taught and make us Catholics uncompromising with the forces of evil that are running rampant in our society including abortion on demand, marriage other than between a man and woman, ad nauseum. Proponents of such sick idea justify their devilish practices themselves by claiming evolution is a fact. Lord have mercy on us.

 

[wanstronian]

The conclusion was not made in a vacuum. The conclusion is based on historical writings and experience, which a priori you reject.

I think my point is that these historical writings are not robust enough to be held up as proof of actual events. This is not just my opinion, but also that of many unbiased historians who have studied the texts. The bible is self-contradictory; the NT is an arbitrary subset of gospels - for some reason, many are excluded; and it makes unverifiable claims about certain events that modern physics cannot support. For these reasons, my opinion is that the bible is not a reliable record of events.

Revelation too, is the subjective experience of individuals. Should this be given any more credibility than my claim that my cat can fly? If so, on what objective merit?

You admit you do not know enough about the Bible. What you do know and where did you get that info from? Ever consider your sources could be wrong? Or would you rather not venture into it because it could well enhance your understanding and you would be forced to change your position?

I read most of the ‘juicy’ bits when I was young, and still impressionable enough to believe whatever I was told. I can’t remember all I read.

You make an interesting point on enhancing one’s understanding. I infer from your posts (particularly post #85) that you’re a YEC. Tell me - have you read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne, or The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins? I offer these up as two relatively recent books which lay out the evidence for Evolution in an easy-to-access format… evidence which can be independently verified by anybody who feels like it and - in the case of creationists - has the courage to challenge their beliefs.

You continually misrepresent my position. My position is simply man’s reasoning of observations must be done in the light of truth. Revelation gives us access to knowledge from outside our frame which we cannot get otherwise. Science by its own definition is limited to our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time.

If I misrepresent your position, I apologise - that’s not my intention. Science is indeed limited to those things which we can independently verify. That’s kind of the point. If we can’t independently verify something, how can we know whether it’s true? Science is just a label for the exercise of objectively discovering stuff. It’s this objectivity that’s important, because that’s what enables independent verification, which is what gives us confidence in what we’ve discovered. Without this verification, it’s just conjecture.

Why is Catholicism true but Islam false? Islam has a holy book too. How come the bible is true, but the Koran is false? By what **objective **measure of truth?

I would be happy to discuss the accuracy of the bible and its truth content.

First verse of Genesis.

In the beginning - time
God created the heavens - space
and the earth - matter.

True? or False? (at this point I am not asking you to admit God. Just whether science agrees with time, space and matter)

Of course it does. Time, space and matter are obvious. Are you saying that just because a book recognises those phenomena, then that book’s story about how they came about is true? Come on, think about it. If, as I believe, the bible was written by humans, they couldn’t fail to be aware of time, space and matter. Genesis is merely their story about how these obvious phenomena came to be. You can’t rely on this story as an accurate record! Particularly in light of the rrefutable falsehoods that it contains. The sort of falsehoods that are easily explainable if one assumes that Genesis was written by ignorant, stone-age nomads who had no comprehension of physics, but are jaw-dropping lies if one assumes they were made by an entity sophisticated enough to have created the universe.

Or, to look at it another way - how do you tell the difference between Genesis as God’s word, and Genesis as a human superstitious explanation for the fact of their environment? What is it about Genesis that means it couldn’t have been written by humans? Given its errors, how could it not have been written by humans?

 

[buffalo]

I think my point is that these historical writings are not robust enough to be held up as proof of actual events. This is not just my opinion, but also that of many unbiased historians who have studied the texts. The bible is self-contradictory; the NT is an arbitrary subset of gospels - for some reason, many are excluded; and it makes unverifiable claims about certain events that modern physics cannot support. For these reasons, my opinion is that the bible is not a reliable record of events.

Revelation too, is the subjective experience of individuals. Should this be given any more credibility than my claim that my cat can fly? If so, on what objective merit?

I read most of the ‘juicy’ bits when I was young, and still impressionable enough to believe whatever I was told. I can’t remember all I read.

You make an interesting point on enhancing one’s understanding. I infer from your posts (particularly post #85) that you’re a YEC. Tell me - have you read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne, or The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins? I offer these up as two relatively recent books which lay out the evidence for Evolution in an easy-to-access format… evidence which can be independently verified by anybody who feels like it and - in the case of creationists - has the courage to challenge their beliefs.

If I misrepresent your position, I apologise - that’s not my intention. Science is indeed limited to those things which we can independently verify. That’s kind of the point. If we can’t independently verify something, how can we know whether it’s true? Science is just a label for the exercise of objectively discovering stuff. It’s this objectivity that’s important, because that’s what enables independent verification, which is what gives us confidence in what we’ve discovered. Without this verification, it’s just conjecture.

Why is Catholicism true but Islam false? Islam has a holy book too. How come the bible is true, but the Koran is false? By what **objective **measure of truth?

Of course it does. Time, space and matter are obvious. Are you saying that just because a book recognises those phenomena, then that book’s story about how they came about is true? Come on, think about it. If, as I believe, the bible was written by humans, they couldn’t fail to be aware of time, space and matter. Genesis is merely their story about how these obvious phenomena came to be. You can’t rely on this story as an accurate record! Particularly in light of the rrefutable falsehoods that it contains. The sort of falsehoods that are easily explainable if one assumes that Genesis was written by ignorant, stone-age nomads who had no comprehension of physics, but are jaw-dropping lies if one assumes they were made by an entity sophisticated enough to have created the universe.

Or, to look at it another way - how do you tell the difference between Genesis as God’s word, and Genesis as a human superstitious explanation for the fact of their environment? What is it about Genesis that means it couldn’t have been written by humans? Given its errors, how could it not have been written by humans?

1. Show me some of these historians who believe that the text and attributes do not meet the test a historian uses to determine authenticity.
2. Which texts are excluded and why.
3. Show me your cat can fly. After that scrounge up 500 or so eyewitnesses and have them attest to it.
4. Read most of the juicy bits - this is like someone trying to do algebra before they learned math fundamentals. I posted previously that the Bible must be read and understood in its totality. Lifting the “juicy” parts out of context and then attempting to discredit the whole test is bogus. Throw away your skeptics bible and take a good bible study course. Great Adventure Bible Study
5. I am well educated on evolution. I have read many many texts, articles and peer reviewed papers. I bought it for a long time. Then I undertook an independent look. What I found were some basic problems. And after the last 10-15 years or so more data has come in fast about the makeup of the cell.
6. no real problem with the paragraph on science. I just add that truth has to be part and parcel of the reasoning.
7. Koran and Bible - Judeism, Islam and Catholicism all worship the same God. That is the focal truth point of all three. Many make the claim that the NT was written well after Jesus’ Resurrection and that is a reason it is unreliable. Now the Koran was written 600 years later and gave some notice of Jesus as a prophet, but not a Savior. Here is a great article to show some errors.

Muslims Worship the One True God
Only Their ‘Receiving Apparatus’ Is Defective

We can go into why Catholics possess the fullness of truth at a later time when you are ready.

1. First line of Genesis - established as true. That was my point. The very first line is true and verified by modern science. We can go through more points in the Bible to show the truth content. I am willing to spend as much time on this as you will tolerate. If we proceed I expect you to be able to put an accuracy rating on the claims of Scripture, presumably more than a zero. (or I haven’t done my job)

At the end you will have to give me a % true number. One cannot dismiss all of Scripture and Traditions because they think they have found an error in one or more sections.

 

[hugh_r.miller]

Hi, Hugh,

Let me tell you about my experience with organic chem … had not chemistry’s answer to the Guardian Angel helped I would not have scraped through and finish the course with the lowest imaginable “C”! Down deep I took the pledge: “I would never willingly enter a Chem lab again!” LOL

Now, about the fairy tale bit - and, really, I am being serious on this. You seem to conclude that God can not have had a hand in the Theistic Evolution theory because there was not enough time. What kind of time frame do you think He needs? There are groups (and, I am not in any of them…) who are convinced that all of creation took place in six 24-hour days. And, there there are others (…yep, I’m in this one…) that think it took billions of years to go from Bib Bang to where we are now. And while the long-time frame work appears to me, I am not going to fight, bleed and die over it. Put any number of years (big or small) and for whatever reason - and I won’t argue … as long as you say that God is responsible for it all… I won’t say a word.

Does it really matter - all of today’s theories are all over the place - which theory you subscribe to? Either you believe God created everything out of nothing - or you don’t … and the theories can be divided out accordingly. I do not want to sound cynical about this - but, the issue as I see it really only involves God (He is either the Creator or He isn’t). After this is resolved, then we really discuss scientific reasons to strengthen a particular theory.

God bless

I’m sorry but I must disagree. The confusion over origins from a science perspective is far more serious than whether (He is either the Creator or He isn’t) as you suggest. Scientific evidences are needed to disprove or at least challenge evolution fairy tales, either atheistic or theistic, if possible in order to dissuade our culture from continuing the downward slippery slope to hell on earth. I again repeat my previous statement which you apparently consider of little importance: "Such a study ( Larry Azar’s book, “Evolution and other fairy tales”) will take you right back to the basics of what Christ, the apostles and doctors of the church taught and make us Catholics uncompromising with the forces of evil that are running rampant in our society including abortion on demand, marriage other than between a man and woman, ad nauseum. Proponents of such sick ideas justify their devilish practices themselves by claiming evolution is a fact (They do what they do because we are all products of evolution). Lord have mercy on us.

 

[wanstronian]

1. Show me some of these historians who believe that the text and attributes do not meet the test a historian uses to determine authenticity.

I’m talking about the biblical minimalists. I cannot speak for them on why they think as they do, only that their conclusions are the same as mine. I believe that the OT is a record of the mythology used by stone-age nomads to explain their existence. I believe that the NT is significantly embellished to give super-human powers and holy lineage to an individual who actually had neither.

1. Which texts are excluded and why.

Google it. I’m sure this isn’t news to you.

1. Show me your cat can fly. After that scrounge up 500 or so eyewitnesses and have them attest to it.

I can show you a piece of paper that says 500 eye-witnesses saw it. What’s sauce for the goose…

1. Read most of the juicy bits - this is like someone trying to do algebra before they learned math fundamentals. I posted previously that the Bible must be read and understood in its totality. Lifting the “juicy” parts out of context and then attempting to discredit the whole test is bogus. Throw away your skeptics bible and take a good bible study course. Great Adventure Bible Study

So what you’re saying is that if I read the rest of the bible, all the impossible things that Jesus did will suddenly seem possible? How can that be so? I think your analogy is way off, by the way. I can read, therefore I can understand the assertions made in the bible. I don’t need to read everything else before I can make a judgement about whether a man can walk on water. And this isn’t lifting things out of context. There’s no context under which walking on water becomes physically possible.

1. I am well educated on evolution. I have read many many texts, articles and peer reviewed papers. I bought it for a long time. Then I undertook an independent look. What I found were some basic problems. And after the last 10-15 years or so more data has come in fast about the makeup of the cell.

Indeed, and I believe none of it contradicts the theory of Evolution. But maybe you know more than me - what are these basic problems? When did you stop ‘buying it?’ Is it possible that some of your objections have since been explained? Well, I guess we’ll see.

1. no real problem with the paragraph on science. I just add that truth has to be part and parcel of the reasoning.

I’m still not clear on what this ‘truth’ is, or how it affects the conclusion of scientific discovery. Can you spell it out for me? Does E=mc2 or not? How does ‘truth’ affect this reasoning?

1. Koran and Bible - Judeism, Islam and Catholicism all worship the same God. That is the focal truth point of all three. Many make the claim that the NT was written well after Jesus’ Resurrection and that is a reason it is unreliable. Now the Koran was written 600 years later and gave some notice of Jesus as a prophet, but not a Savior. Here is a great article to show some errors.

Muslims Worship the One True God Only Their ‘Receiving Apparatus’ Is Defective

Wow - that’s one smug article. And doesn’t ‘show’ any errors, it just asserts them based on the author’s doctrine.

We can go into why Catholics possess the fullness of truth at a later time when you are ready.

I’m ready now. There’s no need to patronise me. Just show me the objective evidence.

1. First line of Genesis - established as true. That was my point. The very first line is true and verified by modern science.

No it isn’t - it claims that “…God created the heaven and the earth.” That hasn’t been verified by modern science at all. If it had, it would constitute scientific evidence for the existence of God, which as we all know, doesn’t exist.

If you’re referring to the existence of the earth and the universe, then please refer to the last two paragraphs of my previous post. The latter of which contained a paragraph which you haven’t yet answered.

We can go through more points in the Bible to show the truth content. I am willing to spend as much time on this as you will tolerate. If we proceed I expect you to be able to put an accuracy rating on the claims of Scripture, presumably more than a zero. (or I haven’t done my job)

Okay - prove the truth of the following:

1. God created Adam from dust, and Eve from one of Adam’s ribs.
2. The Noachic flood.
3. The resurrection.
4. Jesus walking on water

That’ll do for a start.

At the end you will have to give me a % true number. One cannot dismiss all of Scripture and Traditions because they think they have found an error in one or more sections.

Nor did I say we should. I just said that the clear errors cast doubt on the rest of it, and lead us unable to decide what should and shouldn’t be believed. I have no doubt that some parts of the bible are historically accurate - as would be expected of a book written by people who lived at that time. The impossible events they describe would undoubtedly be set against a backdrop of the real events of the time. That doesn’t make the impossible events real by association.

Asking me to provide a % accuracy of the bible is a little bit facile, don’t you think? What are you hoping to get out of it?

Can I assume you’ve lost interest in the original topic of this thread?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Hugh,

Disagreement is really a process of how we get to learn from one another and all of us move forward… but, not necessarily in the same direction.

Let me see if I understand your position from the “…more serious…” focus you have identified:

1- Evolution is/was a failed theory because it lacks scientific evidence.

2- God being the Creator or God being non-existent is not even being considered because it lacks seriousness.

3- We are to be uncompromising in the face of evil (as evidence by the stance taken by Christ, the apostles, and the doctors of the Church - who obviously took a position on science being secular).

As I see it, your entire argument hangs on a book that you are only recommending and not explaining very well (except if we believe God created everything from nothing and used an evolutionary method to bring this about then we are on the “…downward slippery slope to hell …”). It is called a THEORY of evolution and not a LAW of evolution for a reason - it lacks definitive proof.

So with all deference to being ‘serious’ - please, tell me what it is you do believe in specific to science being secular and God’s role in creation. (I admit, just saying “He made everything!”: lacks a lot of scientific reasoning, but when we go before our Maker to render an account of our lives, it will be more related to Matthew 25, then from critical thinking skills developed in front of Bunsen Burner.

God bless

I’m sorry but I must disagree. The confusion over origins from a science perspective is far more serious than whether (He is either the Creator or He isn’t) as you suggest. Scientific evidences are needed to disprove or at least challenge evolution fairy tales, either atheistic or theistic, if possible in order to dissuade our culture from continuing the downward slippery slope to hell on earth. I again repeat my previous statement which you apparently consider of little importance: "Such a study ( Larry Azar’s book, “Evolution and other fairy tales”) will take you right back to the basics of what Christ, the apostles and doctors of the church taught and make us Catholics uncompromising with the forces of evil that are running rampant in our society including abortion on demand, marriage other than between a man and woman, ad nauseum. Proponents of such sick ideas justify their devilish practices themselves by claiming evolution is a fact (They do what they do because we are all products of evolution). Lord have mercy on us.

 

[buffalo]

I’m talking about the biblical minimalists. I cannot speak for them on why they think as they do, only that their conclusions are the same as mine. I believe that the OT is a record of the mythology used by stone-age nomads to explain their existence. I believe that the NT is significantly embellished to give super-human powers and holy lineage to an individual who actually had neither.

Google it. I’m sure this isn’t news to you.

I can show you a piece of paper that says 500 eye-witnesses saw it. What’s sauce for the goose…

So what you’re saying is that if I read the rest of the bible, all the impossible things that Jesus did will suddenly seem possible? How can that be so? I think your analogy is way off, by the way. I can read, therefore I can understand the assertions made in the bible. I don’t need to read everything else before I can make a judgement about whether a man can walk on water. And this isn’t lifting things out of context. There’s no context under which walking on water becomes physically possible.

Indeed, and I believe none of it contradicts the theory of Evolution. But maybe you know more than me - what are these basic problems? When did you stop ‘buying it?’ Is it possible that some of your objections have since been explained? Well, I guess we’ll see.

I’m still not clear on what this ‘truth’ is, or how it affects the conclusion of scientific discovery. Can you spell it out for me? Does E=mc2 or not? How does ‘truth’ affect this reasoning?

Wow - that’s one smug article. And doesn’t ‘show’ any errors, it just asserts them based on the author’s doctrine.

I’m ready now. There’s no need to patronise me. Just show me the objective evidence.

No it isn’t - it claims that “…God created the heaven and the earth.” That hasn’t been verified by modern science at all. If it had, it would constitute scientific evidence for the existence of God, which as we all know, doesn’t exist.

If you’re referring to the existence of the earth and the universe, then please refer to the last two paragraphs of my previous post. The latter of which contained a paragraph which you haven’t yet answered.

Okay - prove the truth of the following:

1. God created Adam from dust, and Eve from one of Adam’s ribs.
2. The Noachic flood.
3. The resurrection.
4. Jesus walking on water

That’ll do for a start.

Nor did I say we should. I just said that the clear errors cast doubt on the rest of it, and lead us unable to decide what should and shouldn’t be believed. I have no doubt that some parts of the bible are historically accurate - as would be expected of a book written by people who lived at that time. The impossible events they describe would undoubtedly be set against a backdrop of the real events of the time. That doesn’t make the impossible events real by association.

Asking me to provide a % accuracy of the bible is a little bit facile, don’t you think? What are you hoping to get out of it?

Can I assume you’ve lost interest in the original topic of this thread?

1. You believe… On what basis? I would like you to give me your rational basis. What historian or writing has had the most influence on your position of doubt?
2. Sure, anyone can make up anything. You can show me this paper. Corroborate it. An supposed event in a vacuum can be readily doubted. It is when other signs and events that that reinforce it. The 500 witnesses who encountered Jesus. They spread the word. The Bible records it. These witnesses were alive when the account was written so anyone could go and ask them, therebye destroying the account and branding them liars. The Jews were definitely trying to disprove His death and Resurrection. Learn of the extra-biblical sources.
3. By reading the entire Bible and investing yourself in learning of Tradition you will understand better the evidence for our belief. Read Scripture in its totality. You would at least know then what you are disagreeing with. To simply disagree is irrational.
4. evolution - I stopped buying it when the science was showing evolution is not the best explanation. It is now clear Darwinism has bounds. Beyond those bounds lies ID. I have been showing this evidence on a multitude of threads for a while now. See my posts on IDvolution.
5. E=MC2 - what underlying assumptions lie in this equation? At what speeds does it work? At what speeds does it not?
6. Muslims - smug article.
7. God created the heavens and the earth. Again, my point is that (leaving the God created part out) the very first line informs us that time, space and matter began. Science confirms this just recently.
8. We believe in the evidence that Jesus walked on water, etc…
9. Good - so you no longer rule out that any parts of the Bible are true. What is the point? Take two positions - the first that 10% of the Bible is true. The second that 90% of the Bible is true. How does this effect your life and reasoning?
10. I drifted with the thread. I am interested in the OP.