Imo no one could ever get a hundred percent.

There are always too many premises and too much evidence that is challengeable.

Who throws away eternity on less than a hundred percent?

But I wouldn't even if it seemed to be a hundred percent.

I'm too aware the people of this world are fooled by appearances.

Besides somethings are worth staking your life on or else there's no reason for all the crusades led in this world.

It's already done, you're just behind the times.

@NotReady
Kinda demonstrating the futility of spending any time explaining the scientific explanation for anything to your sort of theist, imho. I so often hear "Science can't explain X, therefore God" or "X is good evidence for God", but in the event that X is explained via naturalism the importance of X suddenly evaporates, or some ad hoc reason is found to harmonize Scripture with the facts of X.

Yes trying to dominate God with science is a futile exercise against a true believer because a true believer already knows God is authoritative and nothing is impossible with God and that means God could have created man and the Earth by any number of ways that may not even be discoverable by science/mankind.

Holding faith is like holding the winning lottery ticket to eternity you don't surrender it to just anybody.

I agree with this. If God exists, there is no limit to his methods. But that's precisely my point: why do people insisting on limiting their God by denying the evidence we find for how he might have done things?

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed!”? Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.”
-Carl Sagan

So in the case of evolution, is it so unlikely that God inspired Genesis as an allegory for creation because the people of 3000 years ago wouldn't have been able to understand genomes and mitochondrial DNA? Wouldn't God want us to understand the subtle complexity of his methods when we are ready? The New Testament shows that Jesus used this method - telling simple parables to lead to a more complex truth. Something to think about.

If you want to claim that science disproves God or the Bible what you have to do is first establish that the only reasonable interpretation of the Bible is X and then that science proves to a high degree of probability not-X. That hasn't yet been done.

To modify our interpretation of the Bible because science shows a prior interpretation was faulty is more or less exactly what science itself claims is the proper procedure. So why do we get criticized for doing what science claims we don't do? According to you we should still insist the sun revolves around the earth even though the Bible doesn't say this, simply because Christians (and SCIENTISTS) at one time thought it does. Sorry, I won't be confined in your narrow minded preconceived box. Christianity and theology develop over time and there is good Scriptural evidence that indicates God expects us to do so.

Oh settle down, Beavis. I think it's correct for theists to adapt their understanding of Scripture in order to fit in with the new facts we discover. My exasperation is aimed at the dogged "HAHA stupid atheists can't explain X" attitude that precedes the discovery and eventual acceptance of new scientific theories. It's the lack of humility, the ignorant swagger of certainty, that seems both unwarranted and un-Christian.

Science HAS established the truth of macroevolution. The Fossil Record, morphology, embryology, and genetics point to this evident fact with remarkable detail. It is the backbone of modern biology.

But do you understand how scientific evidence could undermine the faith of others? I'm testing your empathy here.

So you can appeal to authority through RTB (who deny current scientific theory but have no peer review material validating their position), but I'm being disingenuous when I cite Dr. Francis Collins (who has a Ph.D in Physical Chemistry from Yale, and is the incumbent Director for the National Institutes of Health).

You can find more subtle ways to be a hypocrite.

To be clear, I'm not interested in any position when special pleading is central to their argument. If I'm off base with RTB, the please correct my misunderstanding.

I'm done. Cya.

I don't know but it could be because people have trouble keeping things straight.

Imo evolutionary theory is mainly useful to help people through medicine.

But people identifying with apes mentally undercuts spiritual growth.

Theists are mainly concerned with spiritual growth. That's a priority with them.

Science has set up a conflict between the physical and the spiritual with evolutionary theory.

The spirit informs ethics and ethics informs science....always has and always will unless you want Dr. Mengele in charge of things...

Typical.

For future reference, you might actually try understanding an opposing position before you accuse them of being disingenuous.

That's one useful thing, sure.

There's no reason that believing apes are our cousins should have any effect on spiritual growth.

No, religious fundamentalists have set up the conflict. As you well know, many of the greatest scientists in history have been spiritual. Science is about methodological naturalism, not metaphysical naturalism. Sensible educated theists don't see there being a conflict.

Ethical considerations in science are very important, I agree, though it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I don't think you can really finger one group for the conflict.

When world views clash they can bring out the fringe elements on both sides.

I think the Christian world view is best because it gives us the "eyes of faith" to focus on a higher ethical standard.
http://www.ichthys.com/Pet23.htm

Whereas moral relativism allows for "making excuses" to permit a lower standard of behavior. Focusing on apes as human progenitor could tend to disrupt people from focusing on higher standards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationa...making_excuses)

The world has trouble extracting the medical benefits without upsetting their ethics.

LOL, theists are concerned with the things all humans are concerned with and to similar degrees, a majority of people are theists and a typical list of priorities with one goes something like this:

1. Eating
2. Sex
3. Money
....
17. Jersey Shore
18. Nice shoes
...
87. Spiritual growth

Such BS. Shoes are clearly top 10, and Jersey Shore doesn't crack the top 100.

It's clear that NotReady has convinced himself that the primary goal of science is to disprove god. Though I guess it isn't all that uncommon a view amongst fundies.

okie. i apologize in advance, this might take me awhile (a few days or a couple weeks), time issues mainly and embarrassment/frustration over readability/understandibility of the prose might cause me to put it aside every once in awhile.

oh and apologies to everyone for what will add to the derail

in case you choose to come back, do you hold creationism to the same standard? do you have absolute proof that whatever the creationists say is correct?

so i'm struggling with why there needs to be a conflict. how does having a common ancestor with an ape stunt spiritual growth? just because some theistic evolutionists have interpreted the bible differently that makes them less spiritual? what about all those christian sects that existed before people began thinking about evolution, are some less christian than others?

Polycomb,

If you're going to spend a lot of time typing up a mini-novelette, do so with the knowledge that you're not doing it to convince the likes of festeringzit, Splendour, or NotReady. They've already dismissed what you have to offer before you've even started (though FZ is doing his best to pretend otherwise).

I didn't leave, I just don't dialog with people who resort to insult.

I'm not a creationist in the popular sense. I believe God created the universe and all things in it but I don't think the Bible gives much indication of the method.

There is very little, if anything, of which I'm 100% certain concerning the external world.

As for the 100% concerning the body of Christ, that was a bit hyperbolic for emphasis. I can't give a real number in advance and it would be foolish to do so. Anyway, it is certainly impossible short of invention of a time machine.

I do hold factual assertions by anyone, Christian or not, to a high standard. How high obviously depends on the fact involved and the evidence.

Edit: I'm sure you realize you can ignore what Hopey says. I would like to see your work on this and am very interested in what you say. I'm currently working through a paper by Venema which was linked by OrP in another post.

Edit edit: Fuz Rana of RTB had a 7 part series responding to another paper by Venema which I've already been through. It wasn't directly on the point involved here and was not very involved, but was interesting.

thanks for the heads up

yeah, i like to think people are sincere in wanting the information, but i realize that my efforts may be in vain. even among co-workers if you bring up a evidence for scientific models they didn't previously believe in, it's often like pulling teeth to get them to hear you out. hard to change peoples minds.

i felt, still feel, i should try anyways. if nothing else i hope to provide some better understanding of genetics, summarize some data and how conclusions are reached. get some practice, maybe one day be able to explain to my parents what i do for a living.

even if everyone was sincere in reading it with an open mind, i very well just may not be able to do this. typed up the offer before i fully thought about the offer.

it's a bit overwhelming and the novelty of it might wear off. if it starts to feel too much like a job, i'm going to need to stop, just not worth the time.

While you don't need to persuade me I'd still be interested in reading it.

Same here.

Actually I'm very interested in reading what you have to say, contrary
to prick Hopey who is pretending to be able to read minds in here.

Talk about trying to derail a thread.