As a Christian, it is not unusual for me to hear that I am ignorant, anti-science, anti-intellectual, because I don’t accept global warming, climate change, global cooling, darwinism. (Don’t even get me started on the separation of church and state)
It seems that “tolerance” in today’s world doesn’t tolerate thought (yes, thought) that takes into account the possibility (surety) that there must be a mind behind all of this.
For instance, I agree that climate may be changing, or may not be, but perhaps this change is not “man-caused.”
I believe that there could possibly be an evolving within a species, but I don’t think these changes take billions of years.
I also believe that man’s existence could easily be only 6000-10000 years, and the population growth models I have seen make this possibility a lot easier to swallow than millions of years. If you believed in the flood of Noah’s day, and you began with 8 people, and multiplied by a population growth model, you still have more people on the earth now than we actually have. To carry this out over millions of years, the population would have to be virtually wiped out multiple times (multiple means a lot. A lot) to bring it down to the current population.
In the 70’s, scientists (not all, but some) were warning us of overpopulation and starvation and a coming ice age, all within the next 20-30 years.
What I am saying is that our views of science, of world situations, etc., are all guided by a basic worldview, where you believe the starting point to be. If one doesn’t believe in a creator god, then every scientific hypothesis will stem from that premise.
If one has come to accept, believe, and trust in the Bible as the word of God, then he will weigh the things he observes against what he knows to be true.
C.S. Lewis once said something like this: Christianity is like the light of the sun; by it, I can see everything else.
37 thoughts on “SETTLED SCIENCE?”
You cannot be serious?
Oh, I can be serious.
So you deny every scrap of scientific evidence to the contrary? Why would anyone do that?
Because the science is always changing. Observation, hypothesis, theory, look for more evidence. I have the most trouble with the evolutionary process, mainly the gradual, long time theory of change that brings the simple organisms into the complex. That in itself goes against scientific laws.
So what evidence do you have to substantiate an earth no older than 10k years?
That wasn’t exactly what we were talking about, is it? We were talking about the age of man.
Ah .. apologies. I misunderstood. I reread you reply.
So, what evidence do you have that suggest humans are only around 10k, and do you accept the scientific consensus regarding the age of the earth?
I was also intrigued by your reference to Noah’s Ark.
While I am sure you don’t actually believe the tale of Noah’s Ark do you have a link that supports the population dynamics you mention?
What makes you so sure that I don’t believe the tale of Noah’s Ark?
Because only foolish YECs consider there is any veracity to this tale so I was giving you more credit than this and assumed you did not subscribe to such nonsense.
One man’s nonsense is another man’s wisdom.
Our hearts can deceive us.
Truth is true no matter what you believe.
Please do not continue to equivocate, what evidence do you have to substantiate your claims.
We’ve been through all this before.
You don’t know that your science is right.
You don’t think there is any gravity behind my trust in the God who is alive.
I have told you that to “see” Him you have to want Him.
No point in my trying to convince you.
Correct. I am not a scientist. However, scientists know that the available evidence supports everything we are discussing here and therefore, because this is the only reality we have, I accept this, until such time as science reveals otherwise.
So, as you are obliged to operate within the framework of the same reality if you are prepared to be totally honest, you have no evidence whatsoever to support any claim you are making and are simply acting on faith due solely to your unsubstantiated religious conviction.
This I accept.
Regarding the age of the earth, I think young, but I am not as dogmatic on that.
Darwin’s theory seems completely untenable.
Based on what evidence do you consider the earth young ( and presumably the universe as well) to be young?
Don’t give me more credit. I can’t argue with you because you don’t want to see what I see.
”Don’t want to see”? What an odd turn of phrase. And why should this be deemed an argument?
All I am asking for is evidence to fully support the claims you make. To date, however, you have provided absolutely nothing to substantiate anything you believe.
And always remember, reasons for one’s faith is not the same, as providing evidence for it.
Tell me. How do you suppose the universe came into being?
How do you suppose life began?
Once again, you appear to be sidestepping and refusing to provide evidence for your previous claims.
If you have a hypothesis, however, regarding your latest questions/diversions then please, feel free to provide evidence.
So, you want me to answer your questions in the way you think it should be answered, but you won’t even consider the question I am asking you?
Not at all. I simply want you to provide evidence for the claims you continually make.
The only question seems to be, are you able/prepared to do that?
And, you have my word that, I am more than willing and perfectly happy to answer the questions you asked regarding the universe and the origins of life.
So it’s up to you, Randy? I’m sure you don’t require me to restate the questions again?
The reason for my question (we have done this so many times) is because I was curious what you accept as evidence for something that happened so long ago.
Do you believe Darwin’s theory?
If so, what evidence convinces you?
Again, you simply refuse point blank to show any intellectual honesty in addressing the questions I have posed time and again over evidence for your claims regarding miracles and the biblical text.
Why on earth would you consider your beliefs deserve any respect whatsoever when you are intransigent over this issue?
Maybe you feel you are fully justified in treating me in this manner because of my lack of belief in your God? The old ”Pearls before swine” adage, perhaps?
In truth, as with so many apologists, I find your blatant disengenuity bordering on the vulgar.
There is a certain amount of irony, however, that you are commanded to offer reasons for your faith (2 Peter) from a text that is regarded as a forgery, and yet here you are steadfastly refusing to offer evidence.
Even you have to smile at this, surely?
Reasons for my faith? I agree to that. Is that the same thing as evidence that God Is? I didn’t care about the Bible, and I found it dull and boring. When, one day, I “heard the voice of God”, I responded (in faith) and everything about my life changed. It’s still changing, always moving forward to a closer relationship, greater understanding, deeper love for the One who set my heart on fire.
When you long to find this that I and so many others have found, then you will be closer to hearing the voice of God for yourself.
But, unless He draws you, I can’t be much help.
I don’t think Peter’s letters were forgeries, but, how could I prove this to someone who doesn’t believe?
Th Word of God is living, and active, and sharper than a double edged sword.
It changed my life.
Actually, He gave me life.
I remember the “before”.
The after is so much better.
That you don’t believe is immaterial. It is the view of the scholarly consensus.
If you continue to believe in the face of evidence then that is your choice.
If you have no regard for the bible – it’s dull and boring – then how on earth can you assert: ”Th Word of God is living, and active, and sharper than a double edged sword.”
“That you don’t believe is immaterial”. Of course it’s material. Everything that anyone writes is based on what they believe from their research.
About the Bible being dull and boring, haha, I realized I didn’t finish the thought. After I was “changed” reading the words was like there was a new understanding.
No longer dull and boring.
In the case of religion this is patently false. Most people accept the religion of their parents/family/ culture /geographic location, which they are exposed to, and to a greater or lessor extent indoctrinated into, and has very little to do with research.
In fact, by the time such an endevour takes place – if it ever does ( and in the case of most Christians, it most certainly does not.) – it is usually for one of two reasons: to confirm already firmly held beliefs, or to expose the falsity of such beliefs.
The former is fully evidenced by religious apologists such as Craig, Licona, Habermas etc; the latter by those who deconvert. (Read some of the testimonies of former professional theologians (Pastors Priests Ministers etc) on the Clergy project. Google it.)
Fair enough. I understand.
This doesn’t make the bible any more factual/truthful though, but it certainly does make one more susceptible to accepting the tales with little or no critical thinking involved. This is the power of indoctrination.
I think you are correct in your assessment of religion being passed from parents to children. What you leave out is the miracle of finding the lost relationship with the Creator.
You seek evidence for physical proof.
All I and countless others can offer you is the evidence that you cannot see until you decide you want it.
I can’t help you if the desire is not there.
I don’t mind talking to you about things I know, though.
You inspire me to grow even closer to “the Invisible One.”
Then perhaps you can appreciate that belief is not something supernatural but simply cultural. One reason you are not Hindu or Muslim for example.
To put it somewhat crudely it is Indoctrination by The Numbers.
And of course there is the Fear Factor to consider – for example:
Jesus is watching everything you do.
You will be judged by God for your actions.
My personal favorite (sic):
You were born a sinner and cannot escape sin, therefore believe or go to Hell.
All are designed to ensure the child grows up with a degree of shame, guilt and fear.
Don’t take my word for it, of course. Read any number of Christian deconverts who lived through this as kids.
As your version of this creator comes in the form of the bible character, Yahweh in human form, Jesus of Nazareth, it is incumbent on you to demonstrate with evidence (proof is for mathematics) that there is any veracity to this claim.
It is noteworthy that this is where every single argument put forward by Christians falls flat on its face.
And this is what you are not willing to acknowledge or deal with, and will rebuff every challenge foe you to provide evidence by asserting that people such as me are sent to ”challenge/destroy your faith” or some other such pithy response, including being labelled by some as a ”Tool of Satan”!
Citing biblical passages is also a favorite to suggest authority.
This will continue until, that is, you are prepared to exercise critical thinking in a brutal and honest fashion, realise there is absolutely no reliable evidence whatsoever for such claims and are then faced with the challenge – continue to live the lie or deconvert. And please bear in mind I have never been a believer so this is not some sort of original thought I came up with but rather the view expressed by numerous former believers ( see the Clergy Project for some prime examples) who have at one time all been in the position you are currently in.
When you say, They have all been in the position I am in, you should have said, I have been in the position they are in. That is what you were talking about when you spoke of the cultural beliefs handed from parents to children.
We can embrace that hand-me-down faith, or we can leave it.
I was ready to leave it, too.
Your friends left it.
I was born again. They weren’t.
I found myself with a “new life” a new way of seeing , a new way of thinking, a new understanding of the One who created me, a new love for that same One, a new sense of peace, a newfound joy.
I went from believing in God to believing God.
You aren’t to the first part of that.
Nor do you want to be.
What you want me to show you, you can’t see.
(So many scriptures that back this up. I won’t bother you with them.)
Ark, you think that you deserve to see God in order for you to believe, and, yet, every one of the countless thousands of thousands of true believers have started with faith, then trust, and have found the life that I have found.
These are not my rules.
But they are the rules.
You, my friend, are not big enough to change them.
Actually , almost every one of those you refer to as ”Your friends”, are those with whom I have interacted with over the years here in blogland and were very much from the born again camp, as were numerous of those whose testimonies feature on the Clergy Project, which I have mentioned and you have not bothered to comment on so I doubt you would ever take the time to read anything such people would write about the trauma and damage done by their faith and what it eventually felt like once they left all the supernatural nonsense behind.
Your born again experience was borne out of some sort of emotional/psychological trauma, as is the case with every ‘born again’ I have ever engaged.Let me reiterate. Every. Single. One.
While you may have found a way to deal with whatever it was, you have not really addressed it, merely handed it over to your god.
What I want you to show me is evidence and that you have steadfastly avoided at every single turn.
If you were able to demonstrate the veracity of any of your religious claims you would have been out the starting blocks in a flash.
But you haven’t and the only reason why is because you have no evidence to show.
That is what faith is and this is the reality you have chosen.
So you are convinced that I am wrong and they are right. And, I believe you have no desire to find the God I know. Correct?
Then, Ark, I really can’t give you what you ask.
And if you say it was born out of some emotional /psychological trauma, well, I suppose that is true.
I just don’t know how such an emotionally/psychologically traumatized man could find the strength or wisdom to fix himself.
And, I am fixed.
The evidence bears this out. So, yes.
I am happy you feel better.
If you are ‘fixed,’ are you suggesting that to de-convert would mean you would immediately become ”un-fixed”?
I cannot deconvert. The change was eternal.
Yes … this is what they all said, too. And guess what?
But this doesn’t answer the question.
If you did deconvert would you be ‘un-fixed’?
I was dead. (To God.) Now I am alive.
Would I go back to death when I have been given eternal life?
If you could receive a new life that let you know and “see” God, would you?
Why are you evading the question? It is straightforward.
If you deconverted would you automatically be ‘un-fixed’?