Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I disagree. One of the most important tenets of Christianity is the idea of the redemption of original sin, which stemmed from the Adam and Eve story. If one doesn't believe this story is true, I don't see how one can be a Christian.
Becasue not every variation of Christianity holds the same beliefs about sin. Some hold that there is no "original" sin or imputed sin, that is the connection between God and man is severed only by our own missing of the mark and not that of our ancestors. They still believe redemption is necessary, and that Christ did it on the cross, they just believe that the sin you must be redeemed from is your own sin, and not someone else's...
I am sure there are even more views of original sin, ranging all the way to the idea that sin itself doesn't exist as something that destroys your connection to God, but rather is simply a description of when you fail to be like Christ.
I think you can say with certainty that your particular interpretation or tradition of Christianity cannot coexist with modern science. Maybe that points to a problem with your theology, since others can trust firmly in Christ's sacrifice for their salvation, knowing they are saved by grace, and still not close their eyes to what we have learned about the world.
I disagree. One of the most important tenets of Christianity is the idea of the redemption of original sin, which stemmed from the Adam and Eve story. If one doesn't believe this story is true, I don't see how one can be a Christian.
Trust me, in terms of the mental acrobatics involving the tightrope of doctrine while juggling the clubs of metaphorical truth and Jesus as partially omniscient, mindful of the solid ground of doubt when the safely net of flat denial (with the naysayers gleefully flicking the peanuts of Bible discrepancy) has been removed, it is not a great demand on apologetical inventiveness to get over, under and around it. Indeed, I have suggested a couple of plausible explanations myself.
Which, coming from one of the Hellbound Satanspawn should make both of 'em suspect right away.
post doc fellow is not a degree. It is a job, like a research assistant, usually low-paid, that one takes after they complete their PhD in order to gain some experience. Sort of like an intern or apprentice.
If his post doc was in Molecular Biology, that implies that he worked in the Molecular Biology department, and should have had as a mentor a member of the molecular biology faculty. I'm not sure what would have convinced the molecular biology department to hire a philosophy major, but he must have demonstrated some skills that they felt would be valuable. However, I find it odd that he did not publish a single paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal related to molecular biology. (This is the other reason people take a post-doc position: to publish research and thus establish credibility in their chosen field.) Might explain why he is no longer employed in that field.
None of this disputes the fact that Dr. Berlinski understands molecular biology.
Molecular biology has not demonstrated that evolution is a fact.
Also, as a philosopher, Berlinski is much more capable of deducing correct, logical
conclusions than specialist scientists are. These same specialist scientists, who have
failed to prove evolution ever occurred, are responsible for making illogical conclusions.
None of this disputes the fact that Dr. Berlinski understands molecular biology.
Molecular biology has not demonstrated that evolution is a fact.
Also, as a philosopher, Berlinski is much more capable of deducing correct, logical
conclusions than specialist scientists are. These same specialist scientists, who have
failed to prove evolution ever occurred, are responsible for making illogical conclusions.
Unfortuntely such will not help. I left this thread because the faith in Evolution is based on man and is shakier than belief in a Creator. I am back for this post as my final word on the subject.
(Note: I am sure it will be mocked, but no factual testable evidence will or can be produced to refute it).
NO evidence exists.
Lucy
The Coelacanth
Archeopteryx
and all other fossils Prove .............. nothing
They all exist complete and are nor showing any "transitional" evidence.
In effect they are simply species within a kind. It is the desire of Evolutionists to have them be something they are not. No eye with no nerve connecting it to the brain and no eye with brain incapable of receiving input from the eye and using such or any actual transition (incomplete) exists. None.
The fact they do not exist, Oops except for the Coelacanth, is simply part of life. Even today we have members of species going extinct. Lucy is a perfect example. Lucy is simply the remains of an extinct species, or member of a species, kinda like the Passenger pigeon is. NO Evolution.
We have members with odd variations, such as is claimed for Lucy, i.e. Bi-pedal VS non Bi-pedal. OK flightless Birds VS Birds that can fly. Variation, or evolution within a Kind, is all it is.
Evolutionists will claim evidence, support from the majority of scientists and mock those who disagree, but ................ they have no evidence just assumptions to fit a preconceived belief.
As I've mentioned a time or twelve - acceptance of evolution requires intelligence, education and common sense. Obviously, as seen in this thread, not all Christian adults possess all the attributes necessary. However illusory, they can't give up the comfort of their blankie - I mean storybook - or Satan might get 'em while they sleep.
The above posts merely show a mix of ignorance and denial plus (of course) appeal to Do Berlinshi's qualifications, so anything he says must be true as a scientist, right?
Except that many more scientists are dismissed out of hand because you do not to believe that evolution is possible and so dismiss it with nonsense (Lucy IS a transitional form) ignorance and denial. Including a general denial or ignoring of the fact that Berlinski was also talking about something that evolution was not.
There is probably no point in going all over it again, but there is always this business of the debunked coming back and saying the same stuff over again. So it has to be shown to be ignorance, nonsense and denial, yet again.
Well, we can do no more but appeal to people not just to believe what they are told - not to just believe what they are told by evolutionists, either, but look at the evidence - both sides. The Creationists claims and objections and the ones on the evolutionists side. See which is the science, which has the best evidence.
Scientifically, if anything demonstrated the evolution was a fact, it would be the Law of Evolution, rather than the Theory of Evolution.
The law of gravity but the theory of relativity.
Both are equally validated, but 'theory' refers to an explanatory mechanism. It is the same with the theory of evolution.
To dismiss it on the grounds that it called a 'theory' is a piece of ignorance or dishonesty - I am never sure which - that should have been hooted out of town long ago.
None of this disputes the fact that Dr. Berlinski understands molecular biology.
Molecular biology has not demonstrated that evolution is a fact.
Also, as a philosopher, Berlinski is much more capable of deducing correct, logical
conclusions than specialist scientists are. These same specialist scientists, who have
failed to prove evolution ever occurred, are responsible for making illogical conclusions.
"None of this disputes the fact that Dr. Berlinski understands molecular biology" - I can't speak to Dr Berlinski's understanding of biology, and neither can you, so I don't know why you refer to that as a fact. I merely pointed out that post doc fellow is not quite the lofty credential that Eusebius seemed to think it is.
"Molecular biology has not demonstrated that evolution is a fact." - As I have repeated many times, theories are never actually proven. A scientist would never use the term "scientific fact". However, molecular biology has provided us with a great deal of evidence that supports evolution, and also demonstrated mechanisms of mutation and inheritance that make evolution plausible.
"Also, as a philosopher, Berlinski is much more capable of deducing correct, logical
conclusions than specialist scientists are." - then next time you are sick, I suggest you go to a philosopher for a diagnosis
" These same specialist scientists, who have
failed to prove evolution ever occurred, are responsible for making illogical conclusions." - your personal opinion, unsupported with data
The spiritual problem of fundamentalists is that no matter where evidence points, no matter what science uncovers, they simply refuse to accept it.
The Bible calls this "hardening of their hearts."
That's what I think too, My family will not give in to saying the Earth is over 6000 years old. But the Bible has no problem with the Erath being billions of years old.
The Bible teaches evolution but my family isn't having any of it although the evolution of the Temple evolves from animal skins to human skins.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
