Science vs Christianity

[Lastdaysbeliever]

You seem to be admitting that there isn't any confirmable reason to think the Bible true. A confirmable reason would do it.

I made no such admission. The Bible makes claims on the basis of history and eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4; 2 Peter 1:16), connects belief to visible evidence (John 20:30-31), and ties biblical ideas to the observable world (Psalm 19:1, Romans 1). It's up to you to decide the veracity of the history, testimonies and how what God has written intertwines with the observable world.

I would like reasonableness.

As would I.

It just baffles me that you post such things as if you think it will cut any ice.

Yea, the same goes for you, how baffling it is to believe we evolved from what, goo? Some accident of the cosmos? Yea. I'm with you on that point.

You're still not getting the point. It's a waste of time quoting scripture at atheists when you have given no reason to think it contains truth in the first place. You do have said reasons don't you?

I present Scripture. I cannot be responsible for what you do with it.

Only to those who don't understand it.

I understand what the theory of evolution is postulating. I just choose to reject it as you choose to embrace it.

Faith is an unreliable path to truth.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

There are many who have thought the same, only to later realise they were mistaken.

There are parables about just what you are alluding to, those who once embraced the Christian faith and turned away. Their reasons are their own and I'm sure you can read about their experiences elsewhere.

You could with verifiable evidence.

Prove evolution. You can't. You put your faith in those who proclaim it's true, but even then it's still just the best guess from a totally humanistic perspective. I get it's an attractive hypothesis because it releases you from accountability to God.

Ok. But i think you're going the wrong way about it. In order to reach an atheist you have to start by saying something that makes sense to an atheist and go from there. Starting with bible verses just isn't going to cut it.

I'm not here to convert you as much as defend my faith. If something offered strikes a cord so be it.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Much like a drug commercial has scenes of almost unimaginable joy while quickly mumbling in the background a plethora of side effects including death.

Science doesn't mumble, it has baked into it the process for others to be shouting about problems with scientific conclusions. Furthermore, it's a positive that there is full disclosure about side effects of medications, just like science is upfront with its tentative conclusions, mitigating circumstances, range of applicability, qualifications, etc.

Hmm. You mean finding out how knowledge can be altered, or how reality can be altered, or how it is altered?

I'm sorry, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about with that one.

 

[Whatsisface]

I made no such admission. The Bible makes claims on the basis of history and eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4; 2 Peter 1:16), connects belief to visible evidence (John 20:30-31), and ties biblical ideas to the observable world (Psalm 19:1, Romans 1). It's up to you to decide the veracity of the history, testimonies and how what God has written intertwines with the observable world.

If it's up to the individual to decide the veracity of the history etc, then the evidence doesn't confirm said history. I don't choose to believe the Earth orbits the sun, I am compelled to believe because of the evidence.

Yea, the same goes for you, how baffling it is to believe we evolved from what, goo? Some accident of the cosmos? Yea. I'm with you on that point.

it's not at all, f you understand the process.

I present Scripture. I cannot be responsible for what you do with it.

But why? No atheist is going to take it seriously, you surely realise that?

I understand what the theory of evolution is postulating. I just choose to reject it as you choose to embrace it.

Again, no I don't choose to embrace it, rather the evidence compels me to. because of the nature of the evidence I don't have a choice. That you think you do only says that you don't understand the nature of the evidence.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

There are parables about just what you are alluding to, those who once embraced the Christian faith and turned away. Their reasons are their own and I'm sure you can read about their experiences elsewhere.

So what? Just because the Bible says that doesn't mean it came from God.

Prove evolution. You can't. You put your faith in those who proclaim it's true, but even then it's still just the best guess from a totally humanistic perspective. I get it's an attractive hypothesis because it releases you from accountability to God.

Why did you reply to my point that you could convince me with verifiable evidence with the above? Why have you changed the subject?

I'm not here to convert you as much as defend my faith. If something offered strikes a cord so be it.

But you're not defending your faith by pointlessly posting Bible verses at atheists as if it would mean something to an atheist. It doesn't.

 

[Howie]

Yes, that's very typical in discussions with devout Christians.

Because devout evolutionists are childish and whiny as their posted responses show.

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

If it's up to the individual to decide the veracity of the history etc, then the evidence doesn't confirm said history. I don't choose to believe the Earth orbits the sun, I am compelled to believe because of the evidence.

Observable evidence is very important when making observations in God's creation. You see an accident, I see purposeful.

it's not at all, f you understand the process.

It's baffling to me.

But why? No atheist is going to take it seriously, you surely realise that?

Like I stated, I present Scripture. What you do with it is up to you.

Again, no I don't choose to embrace it, rather the evidence compels me to.

I disagree. You have looked at what evolutionists claims and have chosen to accept it. There's No shame in admitting that.

because of the nature of the evidence I don't have a choice.

Then you are letting someone else present evidence and do the thinking for you.

That you think you do only says that you don't understand the nature of the evidence.

You don’t know that and it's also a fallacy.

So what? Just because the Bible says that doesn't mean it came from God.

And so we continue to tread water.

Why did you reply to my point that you could convince me with verifiable evidence with the above?

Quote me on that. I think you're purposedully misrepresenting me.

Why have you changed the subject?

Is there a rule against broadening a discussion? I don't think so. If you do than you're in the wrong place.

But you're not defending your faith by pointlessly posting Bible verses at atheists as if it would mean something to an atheist. It doesn't

You seem to think everything is about you. I commented earlier about this very topic.

 

[Whatsisface]

Observable evidence is very important when making observations in God's creation. You see an accident, I see purposeful.

This doesn't reply to my point.

It's baffling to me.

You should study it then, the information is there.

Like I stated, I present Scripture. What you do with it is up to you.

Why, if you know no ones going to take it seriously? They also aren't going to take you seriously for making such an error.

I disagree. You have looked at what evolutionists claims and have chosen to accept it. There's No shame in admitting that.

No, I have looked at the reasons they claim it.

Then you are letting someone else present evidence and do the thinking for you.

I am no expert, and I think you even less so. I am going to give more weight to what the exerts in the field say than someone without that expertise and with religious motivation.

Is there a rule against broadening a discussion? I don't think so. If you do than you're in the wrong place.

You avoided the point.

You seem to think everything is about you. I commented earlier about this very topic.

How this replies to my point I don't know.

 

[Caroljeen]

Which in itself is a great illustration of the difference between Christianity and science. The basis of Christianity is:

• The Bible is true
• Therefore the Bible is true

It should go like this:

*The bible is inspired by God.
*God cannot lie.
*Therefore the Bible is true.

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

This doesn't reply to my point.

I'm certain this isn't the first time you've been disappointed.

You should study it then, the information is there.

I was raised on the theory of evolution. I was unimpressed with the theory then and am still unimpressed.

Why, if you know no ones going to take it seriously? They also aren't going to take you seriously for making such an error.

Why do you care what I think? Let me put it to you this way, this is the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry so your observation is moot.

No, I have looked at the reasons they claim it.

And you choose to accept it. As you stated, you're no expert and therefore are depending on their conclusions to formulate your opinion. I think that's pretty reasonable and not certain why you have trouble grasping that.

I am no expert, and I think you even less so.

I've never made such a claim.

I am going to give more weight to what the (experts) in the field say than someone without that expertise and with religious motivation.

Both sides have a motivation. One is secular, humanistic, and yes, my side is based on my faith. So, SURPRISE! Sometimes the logic of atheists, such at the above comment, astounds me at the narrow perspective.

You avoided the point.

How this replies to my point I don't know.

See my first reply.

 

[docphin5]

That's very gnostic and esoteric and totally unfounded. Again, Paul was not a mystic. He was not a Jewish philosopher. He was not a gnostic. He was a follower of the Way who was the apostle to the gentiles and the man inspired by the Holy Spirit to pen 2/3rds of the News Testament.

You don’t know actual history. The Essenes were the original Jewish-Christian group calling themselves “The Way” up to 200 BC and they allegorized scripture, held gnostic tenets, and wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls. Moreover, the scholars who study the Nag Hammadi say Paul was a gnostic (see Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul). Therefore, Christian orthodoxy completely went off on a tangent and arguably is the apostate church predicted to come by Paul. The facts don’t lie. Not that you are interested in facts or history for that matter.

P.s. you missed following up on this claim:

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

Science doesn't mumble, it has baked into it the process for others to be shouting about problems with scientific conclusions.

I don't understand what this means. Could you explain? What others?

Furthermore, it's a positive that there is full disclosure about side effects of medications, just like science is upfront with its tentative conclusions, mitigating circumstances, range of applicability, qualifications, etc.

The significance of the full disclosure is to prevent liability. It's the only place where you can be reasonably certain the pharmaceutical corporations are telling the truth because if the side effect is listed the disclosure acts as a warning.

I'm sorry, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about with that one.

I didn't fully understand your meaning when you said "Finding out what reality is like is different from how that knowledge is used." Specifically, what knowledge? The knowledge of what reality is like?

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

I am pretty sure that the IV fluids and antibiotics developed by the biomed industry helped save some patients suffering from secondary infections. But you do you.

Okay. Why are you confident regarding the use of these treatments as having been beneficial as such?

I have not seen the actual experimental or clinical data on ivermectin’s efficacy for Covid infection so I have no opinion on it. I doubt you have seen the actual data too.

I doubt that if we had we would fully understand it which is why I posted a 5 hour long roundtable discussion I've watched carefully several times where scientists and doctors who have seen the data and worked with ivermectin give testimony to that effect. I understand that most people aren't going to read a link or watch a video that doesn't agree with them, but I nevertheless made it available.

You are just repeating opinions that you heard.

Correct. That's what we do.

What I do know is that it is commonly used as an anti-nematode/mite medicine and have used it on patients all the time for that purpose.

And hydroxychloroquine?

 

[Whatsisface]

I'm certain this isn't the first time you've been disappointed.

Not on this forum, no. it's quite typical for questions and points to not be answered.

I was raised on the theory of evolution. I was unimpressed with the theory then and am still unimpressed.

What counts are reasons why, which you haven't given.

Why do you care what I think? Let me put it to you this way, this is the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry so your observation is moot.

So? This doesn't really reply to my point.

And you choose to accept it. As you stated, you're no expert and therefore are depending on their conclusions to formulate your opinion. I think that's pretty reasonable and not certain why you have trouble grasping that.

Well, I don't choose to accept it as there isn't a reasonable alternative.

I've never made such a claim.

I didn't say you did.

Both sides have a motivation. One is secular, humanistic, and yes, my side is based on my faith. So, SURPRISE! Sometimes the logic of atheists, such at the above comment, astounds me at the narrow perspective.

This misses the point. One side has studied this subject and another here hasn't. There is no rational reason to think those tha haven't have the truth.

See my first reply.

You answer wasn't relevant to the point it repied to.

 

[docphin5]

Okay. Why are you confident regarding the use of these treatments as having been beneficial as such?

Because of published data that some medicines are actually efficacious and safe for the intended purpose of treating disease. Because I use them in daily practice and see the effectiveness of them. Seriously, you are boring asking such base questions.

I doubt that if we had we would fully understand it which is why I posted a 5 hour long roundtable discussion I've watched carefully several times where scientists and doctors who have seen the data and worked with ivermectin give testimony to that effect. I understand that most people aren't going to read a link or watch a video that doesn't agree with them, but I nevertheless made it available.

Correct. That's what we do.

And hydroxychloroquine?

Move on. You are spinning your wheels litigating old news. Nobody cares about chloroquine unless they live in sub-Sahara Africa.

 

[Lucian]

See post #97.

I'm afraid that doesn't help matters.

 

[Furion]

Of course. Qualified with biomedical science being the source of diagnostics and therapies which save lives. Without modern medicine many more lives would have been lost to COVID.

But don’t confuse the biomedical science that discovers and develops therapies with the policies of politicians or political appointees. For example, I was against mandating universal masks because the science proves they are not protective against aerosol exposures. But policy overrode the science actually published in CDC official guidelines. Fauci ignored his agencies own recommendations and bowed to the political pressures. Surgical masks would only be effective in reducing spread of infection from INDIVIDUALS who were actively coughing but did nothing for those who were healthy.

Don't confuse your grandiose claims of your flavor of science with what actually happened.

For example, you bravely claiming you were against something.

Fauci and his minions were the face of the COVID response, and clearly they are the leaders, and you are a poor stranga on the internet.

The investigation into Fauci and your brand of science will take place. Hopefully you don't come out with egg on your face.

 

[Gus Bovona]

I don't understand what this means. Could you explain? What others?

Others = other scientists who might and often do challenge what any one scientist claims.

The significance of the full disclosure is to prevent liability. It's the only place where you can be reasonably certain the pharmaceutical corporations are telling the truth because if the side effect is listed the disclosure acts as a warning.

It's still a positive thing. Everyone should have full knowledge of the risks and benefits.

I didn't fully understand your meaning when you said "Finding out what reality is like is different from how that knowledge is used." Specifically, what knowledge? The knowledge of what reality is like?

Discovering knowledge, which is the goal of science, is separate from how that knowledge might be used by others. We can genetically modify organisms, and it's not the scientists who discovered how to do that that need to decide when and where that is a Good Thing and when and where that is a Bad Thing.

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

I'm afraid that doesn't help matters.

The reference was for clarification, not as a solution. It's all about the finger-pointing and deflection. That's the whole take-away for me. There has been nothing gained in this effort in futility. I have not lost my faith in the Creator and His omnipotence and omniscience, and no atheist has decided they are wrong about evolution. The only thing that has truly been confirmed is those of us who refuse to accept the humanistic declaration of evolution are painted as, well, basically morons. But that's ok. I enjoy the back and forth.

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

What counts are reasons why, which you haven't given.

It's enough to say I don't agree. You will have to be satisfied with that answer.

Well, I don't choose to accept it as there isn't a reasonable alternative.

Yes, there is. You just choose to refuse to accept the alternative.

This misses the point. One side has studied this subject and another here hasn't.

Another fallacy (appeal to ignorance). You don't know what I have and haven't studied. I haven't always been a Christian. I was once just like you and every other anti-Christ. That said, there are Christian scientists who have studied this "theory of evolution" and found it to be wanting. Oh, wait. They are disqualified as scientists because they are Christian, right?

There is no rational reason to think those (that) haven't have the truth.

Again, you don't know that this "theory of evolution" hasn't been studied by those who reject it. Just plain faulty logic and more like disassociation from reality.

 

[Whatsisface]

It's enough to say I don't agree. You will have to be satisfied with that answer.

It's hardly an answer.

Yes, there is. You just choose to refuse to accept the alternative.

You seem to not understand. If the evidence was good for this alternative, I would be compelled to believe it, not choose it. But it isn't.

Another fallacy (appeal to ignorance). You don't know what I have and haven't studied.

Yes I do, next to nothing. By all means prove me wrong.

I haven't always been a Christian. I was once just like you and every other anti-Christ. That said, there are Christian scientists who have studied this "theory of evolution" and found it to be wanting. Oh, wait. They are disqualified as scientists because they are Christian, right?

This is naïve. No. If Christianity were the criteria for disqualification as scientists then the Christian scientists who do believe in evolution etc would be disqualified. But they aren't.

Again, you don't know that this "theory of evolution" hasn't been studied by those who reject it. Just plain faulty logic and more like disassociation from reality.

You're not showing that they have.

 

[Torin]

I think this is a pretty naive view of science.

I'm not sure why you think it's naive.

Just to have some examples in front of us, here's a list of some early scientific discoveries:

Scientific Revolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The list I linked above includes, for instance, heliocentrism, the circulation of the blood, the theory of magnetism, the discovery of microbes, Kepler's laws, and Newton's laws.

Do you think these are not examples of "science alter[ing] its views to preserve its observations," or do you think they're not representative of how science works?