Any Creationists here?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

I don't dismiss all Science, just Evolution and the Big Bang theories. That is due to my faith and beliefs.

Would you dismiss modern biology, that is almost entirely based on evolutionary models of life?

You might have heard of the various super bugs that are effecting hospitals across the western world. These bacteria and viruses are a problem in hospitals because the anti-biotics and other anti-bacterial and anti-viral cleaners that are used in hospitals lead to the rapid evolution of resistant forms of the bugs. To tackle this problem medical scientists need to understand why it is happening, how mutation creates resistant versions and how this can be controlled.

Accept of course you don't believe in evolution. So clearly this cannot be happening according to you. The bugs are not developing resitence to treatments based on mutation and natural selection because they are not evolving.

So would you turn away a treatment for one of these super bugs if it has been developed based on this research into the evolution of the bug itself?

Jakkass wrote:

You said men and women mind, not scientists.

I actually said

"the greatest disservice to the proper men and women in the scientific community who toil and strive for the advancement of human understanding of the universe"

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

There is no doubt that Evolution is the biggest lie of the past couple of centuries, designed to give a credible alternative to the ungodly, and to undermine the Christian's trust in the truth of Scripture.

While at the same time creating modern medicine and helping to vastly improve the lives of billions of people across the world ... those bastards!

:rolleyes:

aurel

Talliesin wrote:

Similarly enough, I have no problem with people arguing against religions, but it amazes me that they can't come up with something better than this rubbish.
Your next post in any of the religious forums will contain actual content, or it will be your last.

Granted, I did phrase that rather flippantly but I think it is still a fair point. Maybe not entirely pertinent to the discussion at hand however so I'll withdraw.

LFCFan

Jakkass wrote:

I won't force anyone to believe in anything either. I hope to just tell my children of it and allow them to make up their own minds.

So you won't be getting your kids baptised?

philologos

Probably a bit later should they decide to do so.

Tar.Aldarion

Talliesin wrote:

Signature

Cuius rei demonstrationem mirabilem sane detexi. Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet.





Jakkass, please define what you think evolution is.
You seem to use it in the past tense...

philologos

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Cuius rei demonstrationem mirabilem sane detexi. Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet.





Jakkass, please define what you think evolution is.
You seem to use it in the past tense...

Evolution as in the evolution of lifeforms. e.g apes into humans and other progressions before that. It is a way of scientific thought that claims that we have all been formed from something more primitive. I believe we were all created, animals and humans no evolution involved. As for the past tense, it must be one of those annoying grammatical habits one can have.

So Glad

Jakkass wrote:

Evolution as in the evolution of lifeforms. e.g apes into humans and other progressions before that. It is a way of scientific thought that claims that we have all been formed from something more primitive. I believe we were all created, animals and humans no evolution involved. As for the past tense, it must be one of those annoying grammatical habits one can have.

Again, why is it that people find it offensive that we've come from a more primitive subspecies? Wasn't New York just a shanty town when it was first established? Now it's a sprawling metropolis. You need to build solid foundations if what is built on it is to last.

So Glad

Jakkass wrote:

Evolution as in the evolution of lifeforms. e.g apes into humans and other progressions before that. It is a way of scientific thought that claims that we have all been formed from something more primitive. I believe we were all created, animals and humans no evolution involved. As for the past tense, it must be one of those annoying grammatical habits one can have.

Also, I find it quite ironic that the same man who preaches God's peaceful words could be so involved in a computer game that revolves around killing, drug dealing and prostitution

philologos

I didn't say I found it offensive. I just don't believe that's the way that happened.

Tar.Aldarion

I mean, you don't seem to realise evolution is happening around us. Every generation, mutation. I'm not picking on your grammar.

I don't see how you can dismiss evolution, when there is far more proof for it than for some of the physics you take for granted as being fact..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution


Btw, you think the Earth is 6, 000 years old?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

While at the same time creating modern medicine and helping to vastly improve the lives of billions of people across the world ... those bastards!

Evolution created modern medicine and has vastly improved the lives of billions??? Exactly what organism was seen to develop into another organism? Maybe you meant observed mutation and natural selection led to techniques of coping with disease? The sleight of mind in skipping from evolution to mutation and natural selection won't fool any but the unwary.

But if you know of any bugs or fruit flies that have evolved into bats or flamingos, I'll concede the argument.

wolfsbane

Did anyone see the documentary on CH4 the other night?

The Great Global Warming Swindle http://http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

No, it's not Creationists vs Evolutionists, but it reveals how scientific 'consensus' can be no more than propaganda, leading to censorship and intimidation. A cautionary tale indeed.

So Glad

wolfsbane wrote:

Did anyone see the documentary on CH4 the other night?

The Great Global Warming Swindle http://http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

No, it's not Creationists vs Evolutionists, but it reveals how scientific 'consensus' can be no more than propaganda, leading to censorship and intimidation. A cautionary tale indeed.

Hey, nice one! I've been looking for that

philologos

So Glad wrote:

Also, I find it quite ironic that the same man who preaches God's peaceful words could be so involved in a computer game that revolves around killing, drug dealing and prostitution

Theres a line between entertainment, and actually killing, dealing drugs and prostitution now isn't there?

So Glad

Jakkass wrote:

Theres a line between entertainment, and actually killing, dealing drugs and prostitution now isn't there?

Ah, so you're all for simulated killing etc. for fun?

philologos

what does this have to do with Creationism?

Call Me Jimmy

LFCFan wrote:

I take it you were born into a Christian family? If so it's kind of convenient that this was the religion you 'found'.

What about Protestantism? It is a subset of Catholicism because someone was pissed off with it and then England embraced it because it's King wanted to Re-Marry. How can this be the basis for an entire belief system? It just adds more weight to the arguement that Religion is flawed.

QFT

Simply, obvious stuff like this must make people wake up and smell the coffee when it comes to religion... people used to worship the sun as a god which most would agree is crazy but I find it less crazy than any modern religion. At least the sun actually grew yer dinner/provided light etc.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Evolution created modern medicine and has vastly improved the lives of billions??? Exactly what organism was seen to develop into another organism?

Bacterial. And viruses. Which is what 99% of modern medicine is concerned with.

wolfsbane wrote:

The sleight of mind in skipping from evolution to mutation and natural selection won't fool any but the unwary.

Groan ... seriously you have been around for like 200 pages on the Creationism thread, how do you still not get this.

Mutation combined with natural selection IS evolution.

wolfsbane wrote:

But if you know of any bugs or fruit flies that have evolved into bats or flamingos, I'll concede the argument.

Quite ... and maybe the next time you see God create something out of thing are take a before and after photograph ... :rolleyes:

Zombrex

So Glad wrote:

Also, I find it quite ironic that the same man who preaches God's peaceful words could be so involved in a computer game that revolves around killing, drug dealing and prostitution

Even more ironic is that Grand Thief Auto uses primitive genetic algorithms to hand its population AI as far as I know

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Did anyone see the documentary on CH4 the other night?

The Great Global Warming Swindle http://http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

I did, and I found it very interesting.

Did you happen to catch "The Root of All Evil" on Channel 4 as well?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Did anyone see the documentary on CH4 the other night?

The Great Global Warming Swindle http://http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

No, it's not Creationists vs Evolutionists, but it reveals how scientific 'consensus' can be no more than propaganda, leading to censorship and intimidation. A cautionary tale indeed.

Indeed it is:

Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4
This expert in oceanography quoted in last week's debunking of the Gore green theory says he was 'seriously misrepresented'...

I'll copy his letter if you like - he is seriously annoyed, and he was seriously misrepresented. I'm not sure it was the only example of it on the program, either...ironic, eh?

Oh dear, and the director's response to the concerns expressed...."you're a big daft c*ck". Classy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

if you read I claimed that the faith required for elements of Science are equal to that of Christianity.

Is faith required to accept the Big Bang? Let's see.

Is the Big Bang extensively modelled? Yes.
Are those models mathematically and physically valid? Yes.
Do those models make predictions? Yes.
Do those predictions match the evidence of what we see in the Universe today? Yes.
Did the predictions precede the discovery/measurement of the evidence? Yes.

You see, there's an element to science that seems to completely baffle certain people. That aspect is testability, or falsifiability.

A scientific hypothesis must make predictions that can be tested. If it cannot do so, it is non-scientific. If it passes all the tests, so all its predictions are true, it is accepted as being a reasonable hypothesis. If it does it year after year after year, then it gets to be called a theory. Eventually, it may even graduate to being a Theory with a capital T.

You could consider this, if you like, to be exactly the same as prophecy - although please note that this is an analogy. Every day, science routinely predicts thousands of things that will happen far away, predicts what will happen in the future, determines the nature and location of things that are hidden, and determines what happened in the past. There is no other body of prophetic work that matches it in size, scope, or detail from any period in human history.

Now some of these prophecies will be wrong, and science operates a 'one-strike' policy. If the hypothesis is wrong in a particular, it is wrong full stop.

Imagine if we held religion to that standard? You would have to prophesy, from, say, the Bible, whether I have a raised risk of lung cancer as a smoker, whether my daughter is likely to have poor eyesite based on mine and my wife's, where we would most likely find oil in the Porcupine Basin, which drugs would best be taken by someone who has malaria in childhood, what the weather is likely to be tomorrow, and literally thousands or millions of other items.

Now, the Big Bang, and evolution, fit into this framework. You don't think so? Why not? Oh, because they happened in the past, so they can't really be tested...

So we turn to geology, which I will (rather tendentiously) call the queen of the forensic sciences. Geology's remit is the past, and it predicts what happened in the past. How can it do so? Well, by stating how the past it predicts will have affected the present - "if we think there was a sea there, then we should find this and that type of rock". And hoo boy geology is testable. Every day, everywhere, geology probably provides the most predictions to non-scientists of any forensic science, and has the most money riding on its predictions. Oil, gas, mineral finds - all predicted by geology.

Would geology have to be rewritten, if Genesis were true. It certainly would. Modern geological hypotheses are made in a framework that requires an old earth, plate tectonics, radiometric dating, chronological sequences of fossils, and, to be blunt, no Genesis Flood. This is not your grandfather's geology!

So, the framework that you reject in rejecting evolution is extremely well-supported. Decisions involving millions of dollars are made based on it every single day - and not one company bases its prospecting on what it says in Genesis.

If Genesis were scientifically true, you could use it as a framework - and it would be better than the evolutionary framework now in use. Any company that used it would be at a huge commercial advantage as well as a spiritual one!

Jakkass wrote:

However I would consider the Bible evidence, but I know yet again that you will all find that rediculous so what's the point. I accept a lot of Science, infact all of it except Evolution and the Big Bang theory.

Actually, you don't take the Bible as evidence - you take the Bible as the account itself. The Bible can be used as evidence to support something else, and external evidence can be used to support the Bible, but using it to support itself seems rather tautological.

cordially,
Scofflaw

humanji

LFCFan wrote:

I will NEVER force a child of mine to believe in anything (well apart from the fact that Liverpool are the greatest football team )

I know you said it tongue in cheek, but wouldn't you want you child growing up to support Liverpool? You'd by them little Liverpool kits, watch the games with them etc which in it's own way is pretty similar to how parents bring up their children with their beliefs. And making a child support Liverpool is child abuse

philologos

Scofflaw wrote:

So we turn to geology, which I will (rather tendentiously) call the queen of the forensic sciences. Geology's remit is the past, and it predicts what happened in the past. How can it do so? Well, by stating how the past it predicts will have affected the present - "if we think there was a sea there, then we should find this and that type of rock". And hoo boy geology is testable. Every day, everywhere, geology probably provides the most predictions to non-scientists of any forensic science, and has the most money riding on its predictions. Oil, gas, mineral finds - all predicted by geology.

That reminds me, I believe that the continents that we have today were not formed in millions of years either as written in Wegners theory of plate tectonics. I'll learn it in Geography surely, but I won't accept it to be entirely true (It could have happened in a much faster timescale as a result of God)

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

That reminds me, I believe that the continents that we have today were not formed in millions of years either as written in Wegners theory of plate tectonics. I'll learn it in Geography surely, but I won't accept it to be entirely true (It could have happened in a much faster timescale as a result of God)

What do you accept as accurate with regard to scientific models and theories?

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

What do you accept as accurate with regard to scientific models and theories?

Anything that doesn't compromise the beliefs that are laid down in my religion.

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

Anything that doesn't compromise the beliefs that are laid down in my religion.

And it doesn't really matter how much evidence they have? The main criteria is the one you've listed above.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Anything that doesn't compromise the beliefs that are laid down in my religion.

But pretty much everything is compromised in one way or the other based on a literal reading of the Bible.

Do you accept that the modern theory of light is accurate? If you don't then how do you think your TV works? If you do then how do you reconcile that the Bible says the Universe is 10,000 years old when we are seeing light from stars that originated millions of years ago?

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote:

Christians ought not get too upset about Evolutionist tales,
...
There is no doubt that Evolution is the biggest lie of the past couple of centuries, designed to give a credible alternative to the ungodly, and to undermine the Christian's trust in the truth of Scripture.

So much for not getting too upset.

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

But pretty much everything is compromised in one way or the other based on a literal reading of the Bible.

Do you accept that the modern theory of light is accurate? If you don't then how do you think your TV works? If you do then how do you reconcile that the Bible says the Universe is 10,000 years old when we are seeing light from stars that originated millions of years ago?

Perhaps, that's one of the reasons why I like Christianity. It is accessible to everyone through the Bible etc, rather than taking the word of a scientist with a huge salary to find out these answers for people. I can find God when I want His help and guidance. And all I know is, nothing in this world, no matter what it is can provide me their constant help and guidance. I will always believe in Christianity for the amount of help and guidance God has given unto me over the last few years. I don't need anything else, I have personally felt this truth. I don't need to show it unto you either, the choice is upon you to believe. It's because of this help and guidance that I can fully put my faith in Christianity, Creationism and anything that the Lord has done in the lifetime of this world.

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

Perhaps, that's one of the reasons why I like Christianity. It is accessible to everyone through the Bible etc, rather than taking the word of a scientist with a huge salary to find out these answers for people.

Eh, scientists don't have huge salaries. I've given up a very good job, in order to pursue postgraduate level in theoretical physics. It's commonly known that the average research physicist could have a salary about four to five times what he earns as a physicist if he went into banking, e.t.c.

I can understand that you think the bible is great and enjoy what Christianity has given you, but I don't understand the need to make up random facts about science and scientists for no reason.

Plus science doesn't try to answer the questions religion does, so I don't know what these "answers" are that people can get from the bible instead of scientists. I'd guess you've absolutely no idea what science really is or how it works.

philologos

Son Goku wrote:

Plus science doesn't try to answer the questions religion does, so I don't know what these "answers" are that people can get from the bible instead of scientists. I'd guess you've absolutely no idea what science really is or how it works.

This debate wouldn't even exist if science didn't try to answer the question of how the world was created. This debate is quite clearly here today because of what scientists have put forward.

bonkey

Jakkass wrote:

Perhaps, that's one of the reasons why I like Christianity. It is accessible to everyone through the Bible etc, rather than taking the word of a scientist with a huge salary to find out these answers for people.

I beg to differ.

I would hazard a guess that you didn't come to your faith by reading the bible in the original, translating and interpreting it for yourself and as a result concluding that it is true.

Rather, I would say people told you that it was true, told you what various sections meant, and this struck a resonance with you and you have accepted their word as you believe it to be true.

Science, on the other hand, is verifiable. The details of how an experiment was carried out are detailed. You don't have to take the word of a scientist (regardless of their salary) at all, because if you have the time and resources you can start from scratch and verify the stuff for yourself. In all cases, science is falsifiable. Its not about taking anyone's word for it....there is no "closed circle" of people who get to decide the truth which we must accept or refuse based purely on their word.

So I would put it to you that you have your cases mixed up. Christianity is the one where you have put (blind) faith in someone else's word. Science is where you have the opportunity to verify or falsify something for yourself.

I can find God when I want His help and guidance. And all I know is, nothing in this world, no matter what it is can provide me their constant help and guidance. I will always believe in Christianity for the amount of help and guidance God has given unto me over the last few years. I don't need anything else, I have personally felt this truth.

I'm happy for you. I think its fantastic that your religion helps you in your life so much.

I fail to see, though, how any of this has to do with the bible being historically true though. There are many Christians who could testify exactly as you have done but who also believe Genesis to be allegorical.

(This, obviously, does not hold true if, like Wolfsbane, you redefine "Christian" t mean "believer in the historical accuracy of Gensis".)

The greatness of God does not require one to believe in Genesis.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

Jakkass wrote:

Perhaps, that's one of the reasons why I like Christianity. It is accessible to everyone through the Bible etc, rather than taking the word of a scientist with a huge salary to find out these answers for people.

Eh, scientists don't have huge salaries. I've given up a very good job, in order to pursue postgraduate level in theoretical physics. It's commonly known that the average research physicist could have a salary about four to five times what he earns as a physicist if he went into banking, e.t.c.

I can understand that you think the bible is great and enjoy what Christianity has given you, but I don't understand the need to make up random facts about science and scientists for no reason.

Plus science doesn't try to answer the questions religion does, so I don't know what these "answers" are that people can get from the bible instead of scientists. I'd guess you've absolutely no idea what science really is or how it works.

Seems also to miss the fact that anyone can become a scientist, as well. You just need to study science...

Huge salaries, though...I'd laugh, but it isn't really funny. It's why I'm in IT these days.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

This debate wouldn't even exist if science didn't try to answer the question of how the world was created. This debate is quite clearly here today because of what scientists have put forward.

OK, that's an interesting take. You're saying that the 'origin of the world' is a religious question, and science should have left it alone?

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

Jakkass wrote:

This debate wouldn't even exist if science didn't try to answer the question of how the world was created.

Nor would it exist if religion didn't do likewise.

If we look to see which has a greater claim on said field, its hard to argue how religion - which is primarily concerned with our moral living, the well-being of our immortal souls, and so forth - has a greater claim to primacy in this respect than science - which is primarily concerned with our physical universe.

This debate is quite clearly here today because of what scientists have put forward.

Once upon a time, it was blasphemy to suggest that science could determine that the earth was not the centre of the universe or that the sun and planets did not revolve around the earth as such matters were clearly the domain of religion to determine.

You seem to be suggesting that science was wrong to dabble in this field and should have accepted that the sun orbits the earth because it was an area of knowledge that religion already laid claim to.

philologos

bonkey wrote:

I beg to differ.

I would hazard a guess that you didn't come to your faith by reading the bible in the original, translating and interpreting it for yourself and as a result concluding that it is true.

Rather, I would say people told you that it was true, told you what various sections meant, and this struck a resonance with you and you have accepted their word as you believe it to be true.

Again if you would read what I said earlier. I doubted Christianity for a good few years, until I actually picked up a Bible and started reading it for myself. I'd recommend the Good News translation to anyone infact. Actually just to add, do you think that the Bible is inaccessible to anyone in this world. It is the most published book of all time, how could anyone not get it. As such Christianity is accessible to anyone whereever they are.

bonkey wrote:

I'm happy for you. I think its fantastic that your religion helps you in your life so much.

I fail to see, though, how any of this has to do with the bible being historically true though. There are many Christians who could testify exactly as you have done but who also believe Genesis to be allegorical.

(This, obviously, does not hold true if, like Wolfsbane, you redefine "Christian" mean "believer in the historical accuracy of Gensis".)

The greatness of God does not require one to believe in Genesis.

Hold up here! It does require someone to believe in the whole Scripture. How could one believe that Jesus existed from Jewish parents, if one doesn't believe they were brought out of slavery in Egypt. (Joseph being brought there and betrayed by his brothers, interpreting dreams, being given land by the King of Egypt is documented throughout the end of that book) Actually, are you sure that you have read Genesis before making comments about it or did you only get to the first chapter describing the creation? One would have to believe that the Jews were brought out of exile in Egypt to the promised land if one is also to believe in Jesus living amongst other Jews in Israel.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Perhaps, that's one of the reasons why I like Christianity. It is accessible to everyone through the Bible etc, rather than taking the word of a scientist with a huge salary to find out these answers for people. I can find God when I want His help and guidance.

But God won't fix your TV ,or your Playstation with GTA, nor does he design it in the first place either. He won't cure you of small pox or fix you if you if you get a brain tumor.

I often think that theists with views like yourself are only given the luxury of being able to dismiss science so off hand because you take for granted all the benefits that are afforded to you by science.

We, in western society, live very comfortable lives compared to previous generations of humanity, and therefore simply assume that all these wonderful things are just there for the taking. We don't even think about them anymore. While a disease in a previous generation might have been a death sentence we can take a few pills and be done with it.

Often we (as in the last few generations) don't appreciate that these things are there because scientists established a very successful and practical way of exploring the universe around us and turning this exploration into good works.

You are free to dismiss science and look to theological questions because you basically don't have much else to worry about. If you get sick medical science will cure you. If you work 10 miles away from your home mechanical science will build you a transport system to get there. If you want to relax in front of a TV electronic science will build you a TV, a game console, a light bulb, a power grid, so you can do all that.

If you were suddenly transported back in time to 2000 years ago and found yourself living in a cave would you want a priest or a scientist with you?

Jakkass wrote:

And all I know is, nothing in this world, no matter what it is can provide me their constant help and guidance.

Again if you were transfered back in time to 2000 years ago would you want God's guidance or antibiotics?

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

Again if you were transfered back in time to 2000 years ago would you want God's guidance or antibiotics?

You rule out the possibility that God's guidance could have helped the human race to come up with antibiotics (as you so emboldened)? I would pick God's guidance and grace because through Him we could come (and have come up) with much, much more than antibiotics.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

It is the most published book of all time, how could anyone not get it. As such Christianity is accessible to anyone whereever they are.

I think his point was that you have never met Jesus.

You are accepting what someone else (or in the case of the Bible most likely a group of people) are telling you Jesus said and did. This is completely unverifiable, there isn't "Jesus: The Unauthorised Biography" that you can read along side the Bible.

As has been pointed out you are taking those who wrote the Bible's word for it, where as with science you don't have to take anyones word for it, you can do it all yourself, or someone else can do it for you.

Jakkass wrote:

One would have to believe that the Jews were brought out of exile in Egypt to the promised land if one is also to believe in Jesus living amongst other Jews in Israel.

Why?

If the Exodus never actually happened that doesn't mean no one in 20AD was Jewish. They were all Jewish (and Roman) they just have a rather unbelievable myth that explains the formation of their people.

Because there were Vikings in Ireland does that mean their myths about Scandinavia falling off the back of a giant must be true as well?

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

If the Exodus never actually happened that doesn't mean no one in 20AD was Jewish. They were all Jewish (and Roman) they just have a rather unbelievable myth that explains the formation of their people.

You fail to understand that you cannot be Jewish unless you follow the Torah, which was given to the Israelites on their way out of Egypt. This is to them the most important revelation that God had ever brought upon them. You cannot be Jewish if you do not believe in that revelation. The Torah, the Laws and the documentation of the Exodus is the most important element of scripture to them.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

You rule out the possibility that God's guidance could have helped the human race to come up with antibiotics

Well considering antibiotics were invented by the Chinese I find it doubtful.

But even if your Abrahamic god (which was largely unheard of in China until the late middle ages) was guiding the human race in science that is surely a reason to embrace science, rather than turn away from it?

Jakkass wrote:

I would pick God's guidance and grace because through Him we could come (and have come up) with much, much more than antibiotics.

God would tell you how to make antibiotics if you needed them? Is that not being a bit presumptuous of you Jakkass? Why did God wait so long before he decided to share this life saving knowledge with humanity, and why do you think that if you were living 2000 years ago he would just give you this information?

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

But even if your Abrahamic god (which was largely unheard of in China until the late middle ages) was guiding the human race in science that is surely a reason to embrace science, rather than turn away from it?

In elements of science, but not in the Science that rejects Him or turns away from his word. I embrace Science that truly helps the world, but how are Evolution or the Big Bang theories going to help anybody? To be brutally honest with you, we aren't going to be able to prove any definitive answers to you about how this all happened, and you aren't going to turn me away from my faith so I really don't even see the point of this debate.

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

In elements of science, but not in the Science that rejects Him or turns away from his word. I embrace Science that truly helps the world, but how are Evolution or the Big Bang theories going to help anybody? To be brutally honest with you, we aren't going to be able to prove any definitive answers to you about how this all happened, and you aren't going to turn me away from my faith so I really don't even see the point of this debate.

The Big Bang comes from General Relativity and General Relativity leads to GPS satellites. No GPS satellites means you're screwed if you're out in a storm on a fishing vessel.
Since you don't accept the Big Bang, I take it you think there is something wrong with General Relativity and hence GPS is a useless piece of equipment for deep sea fishing.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

In elements of science, but not in the Science that rejects Him or turns away from his word.

Why does that matter?

The Chinese "rejected him" and he rewarded them with antibiotics, something that western, mostly Christian Jewish or Muslims, didn't discover until hundreds of years later.

Jakkass wrote:

I embrace Science that truly helps the world, but how are Evolution or the Big Bang theories going to help anybody?

Said like someone who takes modern medicine completely for granted.

Most of modern biology, if not all, is based entirely on the theory of evolution being an accurate model of life on Earth. If it is completely wrong then most of how we think modern medicine works is also completely wrong and the fact that it does work at all is a complete fluke and should be completely unpredictable.

Jakkass wrote:

To be brutally honest with you, we aren't going to be able to prove any definitive answers to you about how this all happened, and you aren't going to turn me away from my faith so I really don't even see the point of this debate.

Well I would be happy if you just stopped misrepresenting science which nonsense comments like "how is evolution going to help anyone?"

Be ignorant of science on your own time please.

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

Be ignorant of science on your own time please.

Be completely intolerant of other peoples beliefs in your own time please. This thread isn't to constantly interrogate people of what they believe in, infact the OP was just asking to find out what people believed in. You can go attack our beliefs as much as you like in the Atheism forum. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe. Just accept it.

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

Be completely intolerant of other peoples beliefs in your own time please. This thread isn't to constantly interrogate people of what they believe in, infact the OP was just asking to find out what people believed in. You can go attack our beliefs as much as you like in the Atheism forum. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe. Just accept it.

Come off it. Nobody has attacked your beliefs, it's the arbitrary manner in which you discard or accept scientific theories that is being questioned.

philologos

I don't accept Evolution, or the Big Bang because of my beliefs, it doesn't warrant you to completely bash me for it. I've given you my reasons, just accept them.

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

I don't accept Evolution, or the Big Bang because of my beliefs, it doesn't warrant you to completely bash me for it. I've given you my reasons, just accept them.

Bash you? A debate is a debate and it isn't bashing. This isn't a crèche.