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.
Sam Harris has pointed out in his books a link between lower education standard in some of the red states and religious convictions. Personally I don't really buy it, but people will read it!
Polls have shown a corelation between education and belief in creationism (in the US). The less education one has, the more likely he believes in literal Genesis creation.
The current state of society, especially in America, demands that science help them. Unfortunately, it is at the point of explaining origins that we seem to have a disconnect. I don't see how you can use science every day and trust it, yet not give any credit where credit is due when explaining certain things about our world or the universe.
It involves way more than simply "explaining origins". It involves explaining the Messiah, the Immaculate Conception, the resurrection, and the human soul.
There's simply more truth to the universe than science currently has to offer. After all, truth is what we're all seeking, isn't it? Maybe there's "something" about our seen and unseen universe that deserves to be given the credit that it's due as well. You know, like a complete body of true knowledge that's infinitely greater than the total sum of limited scientific knowledge that's within mankind's grasp & comprehension.
It involves way more than simply "explaining origins". It involves explaining the Messiah, the Immaculate Conception, the resurrection, and the human soul.
There's simply more truth to the universe than science currently has to offer. After all, truth is what we're all seeking, isn't it? Maybe there's "something" about our seen and unseen universe that deserves to be given the credit that it's due as well. You know, like a complete body of true knowledge that's infinitely greater than the total sum of limited scientific knowledge that's within mankind's grasp & comprehension.
What I'm getting at by giving credit where it's due is that Americans revolve their society around science. Yet, when it comes to scientists having a very good amount of information to postulate not only a hypothesis, but a theory about our origins they are told they are wrong. I find it funny that we take for granted so many things that science gives us on a daily basis and yet when there is something truly remarkable we choose to ignore based on blind faith. To me, it requires more faith that something exists than something that does not. Anyway, it's not the people that believe in God that bother me it is the utter blind drive to believe that anything that science says is false because it may disprove God and therefore only "religious science" is worth listening to. That's what bothers me.
Polls have shown a corelation between education and belief in creationism (in the US). The less education one has, the more likely he believes in literal Genesis creation.
That's the entire logic behind my book explorer. I want to point out, without being insulting, that it seems that a vast majority of average Americans who go to high school and then work blue collar jobs the rest of their lives just blindly follow whatever their local church tells them to follow.
It seems all the more fitting that the more one really learns about science the more apt they are to discover that it has a far better explanation for where we came from than any religious book.
I also think that there are more people out there who are atheists than currently claim. For a very long time I was afraid to let people know because I was scared of their reactions. I can't imagine how someone would feel being brought up in a Christian household being taught that Jesus was the way only to feel the opposite. It must be very hard for people to cope with that. I think the best comparison is homosexuality.
I find it funny that we take for granted so many things that science gives us on a daily basis and yet when there is something truly remarkable we choose to ignore based on blind faith.
The small fraction of Christians who don't believe in the scientific record about the evolution of man choose to ignore evidence just as atheists choose to ignore evidence about the existence of the Messiah, the Immaculate Conception, the resurrection and the human soul. That's why I stated that:
Quote:
It involves way more than simply "explaining origins". It involves explaining the Messiah, the Immaculate Conception, the resurrection, and the human soul.
There's simply more truth to the universe than science currently has to offer. After all, truth is what we're all seeking, isn't it?
I guess atheists have a hard time understanding how something can be so true, yet to be consistently denied as the truth. There were disciples of Christ who were witnesses. Peter started the Roman Catholic Church. Are atheists saying that he wasn't a bona fide witness? History provides a record of circumstantial & eyewitness evidence, just as fossil records do.
I guess that if it's okay for atheists to ignore eyewitness evidence, than it's okay for creationists to ignore fossil evidence. It's all of a circumstantial nature.
The Shroud of Turin is further evidence.
So, all humans are capable of making mistakes, including atheists.
The small fraction of Christians who don't believe in the scientific record about the evolution of man choose to ignore evidence just as atheists choose to ignore evidence about the existence of the Messiah, the Immaculate Conception, the resurrection and the human soul. That's why I stated that:
I guess atheists have a hard time understanding how something can be so true, yet to be consistently denied as the truth. There were disciples of Christ who were witnesses. Peter started the Roman Catholic Church. Are atheists saying that he wasn't a bona fide witness? History provides a record of circumstantial & eyewitness evidence, just as fossil records do.
I guess that if it's okay for atheists to ignore eyewitness evidence, than it's okay for creationists to ignore fossil evidence. It's all of a circumstantial nature.
The Shroud of Turin is further evidence.
So, all humans are capable of making mistakes, including atheists.
I think, that for the most part, Atheists accept the fact that Jesus was a mortal man. As far as the witnesses, I don't know of many historical accounts of the Immaculate Conception. It'd be pretty hard to prove wouldn't it?
As far as Peter starting the Roman Catholic Church, it is my understanding that Peter, Paul, and Mark (I think I got them right) were Jews before the coming of Jesus. Due to the teachings of Jesus they then converted to Christianity. They did this because historical Judaism teaches of a Messiah coming. So, perhaps Jesus was a brilliant man. Maybe he was very good at the sleight of hand tricks we are so familiar with today. After all, I'm pretty sure David Blaine could turn water into wine today. He is an expert at slight of hand.
You are correct in that history provides accounts of circumstantial and eyewitness events. But, I think history is more accurate at proving certain people existed and big events occurred, not intricate details. For example, do we know for certain how many men George Washington had with him when he rowed across the Delaware River on Christmas Eve? Do we know exactly how many people were killed in the Civil War? Do we know how many were killed even in World War II? A mere 60 years ago. No, why? Because historical records, although wonderful at justifying big events are not inherently wonderful at proving the nitty gritty events. So, what do we have to base Jesus' miracles on? In particular, the Immaculate Conception? Really, what evidence do we have the Jesus was conceived Immaculately? Let's think about it. The only way that could be known is if Joseph said he never slept with Mary. Perhaps, Mary slept with another man and couldn't tell Joseph. So, she came up with the story of the Immaculate Conception. History doesn't give us those little nitty gritty details.
On the flip side, fossils can't tell us everything about a dinosaur. But, with accurate scientific dating we can get a pretty good idea of what kind of animal it was. Not to mention, there is a whole science of forensic pathology that convicts people day in and day out of crimes committed and we take it as acceptable scientific merit. What I find funny is that some of the same techniques are used to reconstruct events that happened millions of years ago.
Let's get a little closer to human civilization. Recently, scientists found the bones of a Neanderthal man that were approximately dated to about 100,000 years ago. Now, the skull was almost completely intact and clearly was not a modern day human skull. Forensic pathologists examined the bone structure of the face and duplicated what this Neanderthal man's face actually looked like. They do this a lot with skeletal remains and they actually rebuild the face using clay. It is amazing how accurate they are.
What I'm getting at here is that you want to take the Bible word for word and base the story of Jesus off of historical documents. Yes, some of these historical documents not of the bible mentioned word of Jesus performing miracles. But I must ask. At what point does word of mouth start to exaggerate certain events? It doesn't take long, I promise you that.
What's up with Christians and their view of science...
GCS-
You had asked why Christians accept science in some areas and then reject it in others. At least, I think that's one of the things you were saying. It is simply this-if a scientific theory is at variance with what the Bible says, then a Christian who believes the Bible to be the Word of God is going to go with the Bible says rather than embrace the scientific theory. Maybe that seems backwards or even ignorant to you, but that's the way it is. It's kinda like if someone says that maybe the story of Jonah or Noah are myths or only allegory, I'm not going to buy that because Jesus mentioned both of them and obviously, believed them to be real persons. Because I think that that I have very, very strong grounds for believing in Jesus as Lord, I'm not going to be willing to correct His theology or belief system on any point.
Science is open to prediction, testing and peer review. Biblical interpretations are not. There is one theory of evolution. There are thousands of religious sects, and within (and without) these sects, each individual derives his own personal meaning from religion.
Science is built upon empirical evidence. Religion is built upon personal revelation. The two cannot be fairly compared.
True.
I can explain how a tuned string will vibrate with certain overtones, how several tuned to relative pitches will create a particular chord with particular overtones, how a magnet wound with copper wire will create a magnetic field which, when disturbed by these strings creates a tiny electrical signal, how the signal can be applied to the grid of a vacuum tube in an amplifier to achieve amplification, how over-amplifying the signal will overdrive the next vacuum tube stage, how this distortion is divided into even and odd-order harmonics, how a transformer makes this voltage into usable wattage, and how a speaker converts an electrical impulse into audio sound waves.
But I can't explain why the riff for "Unchained" by Van Halen rocks.
That may have been a horrible analogy, but I see this as similar as comparing science and religion. There is always going to be the inexplicable, and there will always be a desire for a Prime Mover. Convincing people of evolution will, IMHO, create a bunch of Theistic Evolutionists.
Science is built upon empirical evidence. Religion is built upon personal revelation. The two cannot be fairly compared.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop
......But, the second that you throw an idea in the mix about where we came from and attach something scientific to it all agreement goes out the window.
I know I'm late for this party, so if this has been posted, forgive me, but the issue on this subject I think can be summed up in these two posts.
nvxplorer says that science is built on empirical evidence and GCSTroop says something about Creationists having a problem with science regarding where we came from.
The science that Evolutionists use to try and 'prove' where we came from is not based on empirical evidence. It simply isn't. Every definition I find for 'empirical evidence' involves DIRECT OBSERVATION, so if you will show me DIRECT OBSERVATION of life from non-life, one species becoming another species, then I'll rethink my position on this so-called science. Until then, it's speculative at best, and, as I stated elsewhere, where Creationists are criticized for having a 'God of the Gaps' mentality, what do Evolutionists fill their gaps with? Time. "Must have beens". Probablys. etc You have faith that there isn't a God involved and so you fill holes with "?" and I have faith there is a God involved and fill holes with Him.
I'll agree it takes faith on my part, I hope you'd agree it takes faith on your part, but don't tell me I'm looking at empirical evidence and sticking my head in the sand, that's just deceptive.
I've asked before but since there seems to be some new faces in the crowd, I'll ask again.
When did natural selection and adaptation become evolution?
Weren't all Darwins' finches still finches (and they still are by the way)?
Isn't a bacteria that forms a resistance to medicine still and bacteria?
All I'm asking any Evolutionist to do is simply this....
Prove It!
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.
What's up with Christians and their view of science...
