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.
Not in the real world. In the real world, science is tainted by personal bias, financial motivation or political influences. For example, atheists NEED evolution to be true. That's why they accept without question any finding that supports it. And it's also why anyone who dares present an inkling of opposition gets laughed at and railroaded out of town.
This atheist doesn't "need" evolution to be true.
Please explain why you think I "need" evolution to be true.
Perhaps somebody can explain why those who view the Bible as 100% literal truth don't rail against the science of astronomy as they do against the science of evolution. I'd be curious to hear what people have to say about that.
I think it would be different if there were a narrative story attached to ancient Hebrew cosmology.
If for instance the Bible claimed that there used to be (or just IS) a firmament with stars and other celestial objects attached to it and had some Bible character travel to the foundations of the earth to climb up the side of the firmament to talk to god, then there would be a basis to object to astronomy "contradicting" this "truth". But all you have is these things mentioned in passages of praise and the like, so it's far easier to say it's symbolic or metaphorical or poetic. Even Biblical literalists regard some passages as non-literal. It's all relative.
As a child growing up I remember reading these things and mapping them straight to modern constructs -- I assumed that "firmament" was a synonym for "sky", "foundations of the earth" was bedrock, etc., because I didn't know a thing about the Hebrew cosmology and no one said anything different. It was just flowery metaphors. By contrast in the creation and flood accounts or the toppling of the walls of Jericho or Gideon stopping the sun or Samson pulling down the temple you have people in a narrative that is related just as if it had literally happened and clearly is intended to depict an extraordinary miraculous divine intervention. Perversely, you can even argue a mixture: the Bible says god stopped the sun for Gideon just like we say the sun rises or sets with the implicit understanding that we are talking appearances; what god actually did, we now know, is stop the Earth from rotating (and also suspended the law of inertia so that no one felt the sudden stop).
That last example is similar to more liberal Christians considering the creation tale to be metaphorical but for some reason fundamentalists have decided to draw a line in the sand around creation and the flood but not so much other things. Maybe it's because a young earth or recent worldwide flood have to leave evidence whereas, for instance, gideon's miraculous battle win would not. Anything that is vulnerable to questions like "if the earth is young then why do isotope dating techniques indicate otherwise" or "if there was a worldwide flood where did the water come from and where did it go?" requires a rejection of the related science and the creation of fanciful alternative explanations. But anything that is safely in the distant past with no evidence of its occurrence can just be assumed without need for a defense ... or declared "figurative" in whole or in part.
Perhaps to strengthen your faith that after life doesn't exist.
An afterlife hasn't been shown to happen, so one doesn't need faith to believe that it doesn't happen -just like not believing in Bigfoot, isn't a matter of faith.
An afterlife hasn't been shown to happen, so one doesn't need faith to believe that it doesn't happen -just like not believing in Bigfoot, isn't a matter of faith.
How can black holes be evident to humans in stone age?
If you are sent back to stone age, the only way for humans there to get to the truth that black holes exist is by putting faith in you and your witnessing!
"Believing in Bigfoot" is apples and oranges. It's pretty safe to assume that bigfoot doesn't exist because by statistics they are not encountered by humans. While everyone will have to encounter death, he can't come back to tell what's behind that though.
I often wonder why Christians don't have issues with other scientific theories besides evolution. Never hear them complain about germ theory, gravitational theory and other theories with solid evidence behind them. My thoughts are they only seem to have problems with those theories that seem to contradict the Bible.
Evolution throws a wrench in the entirety of fundamentalism, because if evolution is true, then there was not a literal Adam & Eve and there was not a literal global flood that raised sea level to the top of Mt. Everest and an ark that carried two of every species on the planet (don't even ask how two penguins migrated from Antarctica to ancient Palestine to board the ark). If evolution is true, then humans did not live to be 900 years old and there could have never existed a talking snake or a talking donkey. Evolution creates a real problem for some of the more outlandish things fundies believe, and that really scares them. If they accept evolution, they have to re-interpret many of the stories they hold dear as being figurative rather than literal. The same leaps are not required for other scientific theories, even when they seem to conflict with the Bible.
How can black holes be evident to humans in stone age?
If you are sent back to stone age, the only way for humans there to get to the truth that black holes exist is by putting faith in you and your witnessing!
"Believing in Bigfoot" is apples and oranges. It's pretty safe to assume that bigfoot doesn't exist because by statistics they are not encountered by humans. While everyone will have to encounter death, he can't come back to tell though.
Why would it be the least bit important to tell stone age people about black holes? Why would it be important for an theist to not believe in any afterlife? How would someone strengthen their belief that they do not believe in something?
I do not believe that there is any evidence for any of the gods and goddesses and in my opinion my lack of belief in any of the gods has nothing to do with the lack of evidence of an afterlife. My Jewish background is also low in the belief in an afterlife.
The thread is about if Christians have problems with other scientific theories other than ones like evolution. Do you accept most or all science or do you pick only the parts of science that you do not see as conflicting with your faith? All scientific theories go through the same processes so if you do not how do you decide which one is science and which one is lies and secular garbage to use Jeff's terminology?
How can black holes be evident to humans in stone age?
If you are sent back to stone age, the only way for humans there to get to the truth that black holes exist is by putting faith in you and your witnessing!
I lack the tools to give them understanding, so it would be an act of faith on their behalf, but an act of faith in me, not black holes.
There is no proof I'm aware of for an afterlife, despite attempts by some to find one. It's not faith to say there is no proof of an afterlife.
Why would it be the least bit important to tell stone age people about black holes? Why would it be important for an theist to not believe in any afterlife?
It's just an example of how humans can reach a truth which lies outside their knowledge set. After life (if exists) belongs to such a category. Thus believing in witnessing is the only way to reach it.
It's just an example of how humans can reach a truth which lies outside their knowledge set. After life (if exists) belongs to such a category. Thus believing in witnessing is the only way to reach it.
Are you saying that the only way to get to an afterlife is to believe in it or that the only way you would know if there is an afterlife is if someone told you about it?
According to religion there is no afterlife or many different afterlives so I guess if all we are doing is taking someone's word for it they all would be the same or is it only the Christian one that is valid?
The existence or non existence of an afterlife is not a scientific theory so we are getting off topic.
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.
