Any Creationists here?

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

The Bible has never changed. Where does my faith lie?

Not in a religion or an institution, it lies in God and His word.

Religious institutions are resistant to change I think because they like rules and walls and structure for their comfort. As an individual, show me where my beliefs are wrong, using God's word and I will change my belief and understanding.

So, you as an individual are prepared to change, which you seem to consider a good thing.

Religious institutions are resistant to change, which you see m to consider a not-so-good thing.

The Bible never changes....and this is what you put your faith in.

Do you simply keep all these ideas in different boxes?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Stephen Hawking: “Universe popped out of nothing!”

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Not at all wicknight. Scientific discovery is fantastic. I can trust my computer monitor, it is testable and buildable and workable.

The theories on evolution in particular and past events in general can not be proven but can only be inferred in varying degrees based on evidence.

Think of it this way.

This is a map of Europe from the 16th Century



Clearly this map is not particularly accurate. But is it worthless? Of course not. It represents the best that map makers could to at the time. And while it is not completely correct, its not too bad either

Now update to 21th century



A much more accurate map of Europe, but still relatively similar to the one from the 16th century.

Now would you say that because the map from the 16th century was inaccurate that you should also consider this map with a great deal of distrust?

If they couldn't get it right in the 16th century why would anyone think they could get it write in the 21st century?

You would probably say that such line of thinking is nonsense. The map from the 16th century is useful even if not totally correct, and by continuously correcting and updating map makes have gotten to the state of the 21st century map.

But this is exactly what you are saying about science.

By the very nature of science you need to start off with something inaccurate and work up increasing the accuracy until you get closer and closer to reality. Yet you see this as a weakness and decide to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Would you not trust a 21st century map because 16th century map makes made mistakes? Would you not hold a 16th century map to be of any use because you know it gets bits wrong?

BrianCalgary wrote:

You are then asking me to trust you with my eternal salvation. How can I when the story changes?

That is like asking how can I possible trust the map I just bought to direct me to London, sure look at those 16th century maps, they were all over the place and since then the maps are constantly changing and being updated to be more accurate!! How can I trust the one I have just bought, maybe a newer one will come out next year. This map is therefore totally useless!!

That line of thought if obviously nonsense. The map might get some details wrong, and a more detailed accurate map might come out tomorrow. But the map isn't useless, or would you say you cannot trust it.

That aside do you really think God cares if you believe in evolution or not? If you honestly do then what does that tell you about your god?

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

That aside do you really think God cares if you believe in evolution or not? If you honestly do then what does that tell you about your god?

It's the timescale thats the problem. In Genesis it says He created everything but He doesn't tell us how, so evolution would be probable if it didn't take millions of years.

Ciaran500

Jakkass wrote:

It's the timescale thats the problem. In Genesis it says He created everything but He doesn't tell us how, so evolution would be probable if it didn't take millions of years.

That has nothing to do with the bit you quoted?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

It's the timescale thats the problem. In Genesis it says He created everything but He doesn't tell us how, so evolution would be probable if it didn't take millions of years.

Well you said you are making the mistake a lot of Creationists make. Evolution is nothing to do with the time scale that the Earth was created 4.5 billion years ago. You are throwing out a hell of a lot more science than just evolutionary biology if you want to start saying you don't believe the Earth is more than 10,000 years old.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

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

Really? Bacteria evolved into non-bacteria? Viruses evolved into non-viruses? I'll be interested in the documentation.

Mutation combined with natural selection IS evolution.

If you had been paying close attention to the Creation/Evolution thread, you would have found the definition of evolution under debate IS NOT that. Both Creationist and Evolutionist accept mutation and natural selection. The Evolutionist believes they lead to formation of new types of organism - molecules-to-man. The Creationist believes they only cause adaptive changes in the organism - e.g., the mouse remains a mouse, but with a bigger tail, shorter fur, whatever.

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

I'm glad you admit evolution, like the creationist account of origins, is not scientifically provable. It is not seen in life, nor in the scientific record - it's just another hypothesis dreamed up by those seeking an alternative to the historic Christian account.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

I did, and I found it very interesting.

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

No, I missed that, but caught a bit of a review. I take it it was a more popular form of Dawkin's literary jihad? All religion is bad, we would all be better off believing we are here without any purpose, etc? Or did he come up with some new concept?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

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.

Thanks for the update. Yes, it only goes to show one cannot trust the impartiality of scientists. They are just men like the rest of society.

As to the debate on Global Warming, I'm unconvinced and distrustful of both sides. Not that I'm suggesting they are all deliberately lying. Some probably are, but many will be calling it as they see it, albeit influenced by outside considerations.

As a Christian, the more catastropic scenario seems the more likely, in that it fits well the Biblical prophecies of the End Time, e.g.
Luke 21:25 “And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; 26 men’s hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near.”

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Thanks for the update. Yes, it only goes to show one cannot trust the impartiality of scientists. They are just men like the rest of society.

Duh!, that doesn't even need to be said. The whole point of science is that peer review combined with disparate opinions and experimental observation eventually leads to correct results. This is shown to be true by the technology science produces. In the long run, it has always been immune to the bias of its practitioners.

I can't believe the only criticisms you people can come up with are "scientists are people", "science has got stuff wrong before" or a linear combination of both.

I mean it's because we are people and we can get stuff wrong that forms the foundation of the scientific method.

Read some freaking Popper!

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Thanks for the update. Yes, it only goes to show one cannot trust the impartiality of scientists. They are just men like the rest of society.

I find that an odd remark. A journalist misrepresents a scientist, and you consider that it shows that one cannot trust the impartiality of scientists.

wolfsbane wrote:

As to the debate on Global Warming, I'm unconvinced and distrustful of both sides. Not that I'm suggesting they are all deliberately lying. Some probably are, but many will be calling it as they see it, albeit influenced by outside considerations.

As a Christian, the more catastropic scenario seems the more likely, in that it fits well the Biblical prophecies of the End Time, e.g.
Luke 21:25 “And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; 26 men’s hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near.”

Hmm. Yes, I occasionally wonder why there is not slightly more committment by Christians to the 'stewardship of the earth' that they were give. Possibly the regularity with which fundamentalist Christians deny any possibility of climate change is a denial of that responsibility.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

All religion is bad, we would all be better off believing we are here without any purpose, etc? Or did he come up with some new concept?

Well he has never claimed that we are all better off living without purpose.

Prof. Dawkins on a number of occasions has commented on what he thinks his purpose in life is, a purpose he has largely defined for himself, as should all free people. He is quite opposed to slavery, be it physical or mental.

If you think that is worse than living your life based on something a group of cult followers wrote in a book 2000 years ago I suppose that is your choice.

He has claimed that all religion is bad, you are right about that.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Really? Bacteria evolved into non-bacteria? Viruses evolved into non-viruses?

Yes clearly, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

But that isn't what concerns modern medicine. Bacteria that becomes multicelluar would be a very rare event. What is of much more concern to modern medicine are the mutations that develop resistance to antibiotics and anti-viral treatments.

If you are actually asking has it ever been observed that a uni-cellular life form has mutated into a multi-cellular life form then yes this has been observed. As detailed on the TalkOrigin.org website experiments have been carried out with an uni-cellular alge called Chlorella vulgaris Chlorella is uni-cellular in the wild, meaning it has just one cell. But let it mutate in a lab over 10 to 20 generates when exposed to a predator (for natural selection) and you start to see mutations that cause the unicellular life form develop into a multicelluar lifeform

What happens is the mutation causes a change in the structure of the cell walls. A membrane forms over the recently divided of cells, encasing them together. They form 8 cellular structures, that continue to operate as one life form. This gives these mutated cells an advantage over the predator and they out bread the uni-cellular non-mutated version.

A clearer observation of mutation would be difficult to find. All the things that Creationists claim cannot happen happening in one example

- Mutation that doesn't out right kill the life form
- Mutation that adds a specific benefit to the life form
- Mutation that is selected by natural selection based on the above benefit to adapt against a predator
- Mutation that causes a fundamental increase in the complexity of the life form.

So if your question was really has it ever been observed that a uni-cellular life form evolved into a multi-cellular life form then the answer is yes, it has.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

wolfsbane wrote:

I'll be interested in the documentation.

I seriously seriously doubt that :rolleyes:

You have always showed very little interest in the actual details of evolution, or in the scientific experiments that observe the things Creationists have told you cannot happen and which you have blindly accepted. I don't imagine this is going to change now.

I suppose since you asked -

Boraas, M. E., D. B. Seale and J. E. Boxhorn. 1998. "Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin for multicellularity." Evolutionary Ecology. 12: 153-164.

wolfsbane wrote:

Both Creationist and Evolutionist accept mutation and natural selection. The Evolutionist believes they lead to formation of new types of organism - molecules-to-man.

Mutation and natural selection are "evolution"

What Creationists don't accept is that evolution can increase the complexity of life to such a degree that over time complexity of life will increase, from simple replicators to humans.

But there no reason to believe that evolution would just magically stop as Creationist claim must have happened at some point. New types of organisms arising from mutations of previous ones have been observed to happen.

Evolution is still happening. You can observe it happening.

Why would you not believe this is how life developed on Earth, except on religious grounds? All the things Creationists claim cannot happen have been observed to happen. They are not retreating to the claim that it can happen, but it didn't happen. Which is ridiculous.

wolfsbane wrote:

The Creationist believes they only cause adaptive changes in the organism - e.g., the mouse remains a mouse, but with a bigger tail, shorter fur, whatever.

"Adaptive changes" over a billion or so years will lead to far more complex organisms that you start out with. We know this because "adaptive changes" have been observed to lead to more complex organisms today

As detailed above it only took 20 generations for the unicellular life form to develop into an 8 celled multi-cellular life form. This is today, not millions of years ago. You can watch this happen Wolfsbane.

I'm not sure of the exact time in days but it was probably not more than 20 days considering uni-cellar life tends to multiply once every 8 or so hours. Imagine this happening with trillions of celled life over a period of a few million years.

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm glad you admit evolution, like the creationist account of origins, is not scientifically provable.

No, what you want to see evolution do (go from bacteria to a rat in a time frame observable by humans) is impossible. But then it was never claimed it was. This process takes millions of years.

What it is possible to do is to observe the stages one at a time. You can see a mutation change a 2 legged duck into a 4 legged duck. You can see the mutation that changes a single cell life form into a multi-cell life form. You can see the mutation that adds new genetic information onto the end of a chromosome etc etc

All the things that Creationists claim can never happen you can actually observe.

Seriously, what more do you want?

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote:

There is a difference between religion and Christianity, in the context of what you are writing. Religion is an institution that interprets and dictates doctrine, and other stuff in areas that it should or shouldn't be involved in. Christianity is based on the word of God as told through the pages of the Bible.

And from this, concluded that the sun revolved around the earth.

The Bible has never changed. Where does my faith lie?

Your faith, sir, lies in the interpretation of a collation of a translation of a number of documents which no longer exist.

An interpretation which, has been shown to be downright wrong at times.
An interpretation which has not remained constant over the centuries.
An interpretation which is disputed amongst the faithful, and which is to this day not commonly shared amongst the same.

Not in a religion or an institution, it lies in God and His word.

And yet there will be other Christians who will say the same and take a different interpretation from the same collation of translations. There will be other who will use a different collation of translations, and others who will, indeed, use a different collation. Like you, many of them know that theirs is the one true understanding....despite the reality that at most only one of them can be. Like you, many of them will argue that the illusory constancy of the material in which they base their faith somehow adds gravitas, credibility and righteousness to their interpretation.

Perhaps you can explain to me how that is? How can it be that so many people who make the same claim as you can all be wrong, or can believe in differing interpretations if - as you say - the word of God does not change and this is somehow an indication of the veracity of your own flavour of interpretation.

And most importantly...if someone does not belong to any of those groups, how can one identify the group who is correctly interpreting the unchanging word of God from all the others? I unfortunately can't just take your word that its you and your beliefs, because any other faithful Christian will give me the same assurances about their differing understanding.

As an individual, show me where my beliefs are wrong, using God's word and I will change my belief and understanding.

I cannto reconcile such a stance with the oft-repeated "the bible is right" mantra which is the root of why creationists dsiagree with evolution. "I don't care what the evidence says, if it contradicts the bible the conclusion is wrong" is not a stance which is compatible with a claim that allows the possibility of showing where your beliefs are wrong.

On that note, however, I notice that you've neglected to respond to my clarification of what you "remember" about the state of science in the 70s regarding global cooling. Is that an acknowledgement that your beliefs in that regard were wrong, and if so, have you changed your belief and understanding of what it is you actually lived through three decades ago?

philologos

bonkey wrote:

An interpretation which is disputed amongst the faithful, and which is to this day not commonly shared amongst the same.

The Big Bang theory has been disputed by many in Science.
(and why isn't this thread merged with the other one?)

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, it only goes to show one cannot trust the impartiality of scientists. They are just men like the rest of society.

Interesting.

You recognise that the untrustworthiness is because they're "just men" like "the rest of society".

Those faithful who explain the interpretation of scripture, who act as spiritiual leaders, etc. are all part of "the rest of society". Those who wrote the bible in the first place were also part of "the rest of society".

Indeed, everyone involved in putting the bible onto paper, translating, transcribing, selecting which works were to form the bible and which not.....all of tose were also part of "the rest of society".

So tell me...why do you trust their impartiality?

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm glad you admit evolution, like the creationist account of origins, is not scientifically provable.

I'm beginning to suspect that Creationists have some genetic disposition preventing them from retaining the knowledge that you cannot prove a scientific theory.

It doesn't seem to matter how often this is pointed out, you get this same irrelevant and incorrect criticism again and again and again.

Not that I'm suggesting they are all deliberately lying. Some probably are, but many will be calling it as they see it, albeit influenced by outside considerations.

Do you apply the same critique to the Creationist penchant for repeating ad nauseum the strawman argument regarding "scientific provability" ???? ?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

The Big Bang theory has been disputed by many in Science.
(and why isn't this thread merged with the other one?)

It has. So has every single scientific theory that has ever existed in the last 200 years. You eliminate the aspects of the model that don't reflect reality. The only way to do this is to test each aspect over and over.

Nothing in science is accepted on faith. Everything in science is tested over and over and disputed over and over. A theory that survives this process can be considered accurate and reliable, but importantly is never considered "proven", and is always open to further testing. A theory that doesn't survive is either discarded or updated based on observation.

That is how science works.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

It has. So has every single scientific theory that has ever existed in the last 200 years. You eliminate the aspects of the model that don't reflect reality. The only way to do this is to test each aspect over and over.

Nothing in science is accepted on faith. Everything in science is tested over and over and disputed over and over. A theory that survives this process can be considered accurate and reliable, but importantly is never considered "proven", and is always open to further testing. A theory that doesn't survive is either discarded or updated based on observation.

That is how science works.

With the result that the Theory of Evolution has been updated repeatedly since Darwin. The essential outline remains the same, but the details have changed profoundly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

The Big Bang theory has been disputed by many in Science.
(and why isn't this thread merged with the other one?)

It was initially because it had very little evidence in the 30s to 50s. What's your point though?

It's very difficult, today, to construct a theory of gravity that agrees with cosmological observations and special relativity that doesn't lead to the Big Bang.

Something most people don't know is that if you think if the Big Bang is wrong, there is something seriously wrong with how we think gravity works.

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

Everything in science is tested over and over and disputed over and over. A theory that survives this process can be considered accurate and reliable, but importantly is never considered "proven", and is always open to further testing.

Perhaps even more importantly, such testing determines the limits of the accuracy and reliability of any given theory.

to use the oft-cited example....we use Newtonian physics to do certain things that we will entrust our life to, despite knowing that Newtonian physics aren't quite right. They're good enough for what we use them for...because we know the limits of applicability of the model.

If someone wishes to argue that gravity is really caused by some expansion-of-space process (an idea mentioned at teh back of The Dilbert Future, if memory serves) thats just fine. Were they show that this is a more accuarate model then our existing one, that would be of great benefit. But y'know what....it still wouldn't mean that our existing theory was any less useful. If anything, it would make it more useful because we could know if/when it wasn't the right modelling technique to use.

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

Were they show that this is a more accuarate model then our existing one, that would be of great benefit. But y'know what....it still wouldn't mean that our existing theory was any less useful.

That is a good point, that I think is lost on Creationists and others ignorant of science.

Ultimately the "worth" of a scientific theory is judged by how it predicts the universe around us, how useful it is.

Despite what JC and Wolfsbane claim (in a rather bizarre tin foil hat way) scientists are sitting around dreaming up elaborate theories to prove that God doesn't exist. They are sitting around dreaming up elaborate theories and testing these theories to provide humanity with benefit.

The study into biological processes that lead to and then benefited from the Darwin theory of evolution has provided massive benefit to man kind.

Theories about light and gravity have lead to great benefit for mankind. The same principle that has detected that detects the composition and movement of stars also helps scientists to quickly and accurately detect chemical compounds such as in a criminal investigation.

You cannot separate out the science from what Creationists are happy to accept and what they refuse to accept. It is all the same science. All scientific theories build on top of other scientific theories, and all are judged in their usefulness.

We wouldn't have modern biology if it wasn't for the Darwin theory of evolution because so many further theories have been build upon it, and if it didn't work they wouldn't work either.

I must say it makes me quite annoyed when I hear Creationists go on like this. They will proclaim science is nonsense, proclaim that their religious book is the trust. Yet do they turn away their medicine? Do they turn away their hospitals? Do they turn away their electronic equipment?

Do they even realise that none of these things would work at all without the theories behind them?

Its nonsense really.

Cantab.

Wicknight wrote:

I must say it makes me quite annoyed when I hear Creationists go on like this. They will proclaim science is nonsense, proclaim that their religious book is the trust. Yet do they turn away their medicine? Do they turn away their hospitals? Do they turn away their electronic equipment?

Many creationists would tell you that the fruits of science are a gift from God. Being a creationist does not make you anti-science. There seems to be a polar assumption throughout this forum that if you are a creationist, you are somehow "anti-science". Yes, I can see how an atheist would think themselves "anti-creationist" and "pro-science", but the opposite is not the case.

Son Goku

Cantab. wrote:

Many creationists would tell you that the fruits of science are a gift from God. Being a creationist does not make you anti-science. There seems to be a polar assumption throughout this forum that if you are a creationist, you are somehow "anti-science". Yes, I can see how an atheist would think themselves "anti-creationist" and "pro-science", but the opposite is not the case.

I wouldn't really call them anti-science*, it's more that they have very inconsistent and odd objections to certain areas of science. These range from full blown conspiracy theories, a lá wolfsbane, to criticisms that could apply equally well to other areas of science, but only get applied to evolution and the Big Bang, e.t.c. and criticisms that are bizarre in their own right.
(i.e. "Scientists are only men")
For example Brian's three examples (Brontosaurus, e.t.c.)and the conclusion drawn from them, could apply equally well to particle accelerators in CERN. Yet I don't think Brian would say the pion doesn't exist. (Unless I'm wrong)

Aside from that there is a tendency to artificially split science into operational and non-operational, where in reality science is a self-supporting web of ideas. With techniques from the non-operational being incorporated into the operational. As well as entire fields shifting status from non-operational to operational over less than decade.

*Anti-Science often takes a very different form to the way creationists talk about science. Creationists usually don't have any objections to science outside the standard creation-evolution stuff and talk about it like most others would. Which is why scientists in days gone by could be creationist.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

*Anti-Science often takes a very different form to the way creationists talk about science. Creationists usually don't have any objections to science outside the standard creation-evolution stuff and talk about it like most others would. Which is way scientists in days gone by could be creationist.

Indeed, it is why it is perfectly fine for a scientist to be a Creationist now as well. It is only if you allow your beliefs to over-ride the science that there is a problem.

This is part of why science is successful - it can be applied by anyone with appropriate training, and the training is open to anyone. It is secular, in the sense that religion has no place in science per se, although it can occupy the lives of scientists as much as they wish.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Cantab. wrote:

Many creationists would tell you that the fruits of science are a gift from God.

But they would tell me this while also saying that the theories that produced these "fruits" are an a front to God and must be incorrect.

For example say a new medical cure is found that relies on the theory of evolution, as most modern medicine does.

The Creationists* will claim that God has inspired the scientists and doctors that have come up with this new treatment, while stating that the biological theories behind the treatment are anti-religious and cannot possibly be true.

Worse they will claim that others should not be taught these theories, or that they should be taught nonsense ones along side, which will prevent these new treatments, that the Creationists themselves claim are mini-miracles, from being developed in the future.

This doesn't just apply to evolution and biology, but to a whole range of science, as Son points out. Things like General Relativity, or radioactive decay, have practical uses far removed from showing the Bible is not literal with dating of the Earth and the Big Bang.

Creationists are happy to use the fruits of these theories when it suits them, but heaven forbid that these theories be applied, in exactly the same way, to a question that contradicts the Bible.

It is this bizarre inconsistency and ignorance toward science that annoys me.

*When I say Creationists I should make it clear that I'm talking about literal Biblical Young Earth Creationists (YEC), not simply people who think God created the universe

bonkey

Cantab. wrote:

Many creationists would tell you that the fruits of science are a gift from God.

Creationists would tell you that some fruits of science are a gift from God, whereas others aren't really fruits at all for some (varying) reason.

Being a creationist does not make you anti-science.

Creationist, in the sense its being used here (i.e. YEC) makes you anti-evolution at least, and typically anti- a number of other scientific theories which are all directly or indirectly linked to the history of our universe and planet.

It doesn't make you "anti-science" in the sense that you reject all science. It makes you anti-science in the sense that there are entire areas of science which you reject and oppose for non-scientific reasons.

There seems to be a polar assumption throughout this forum that if you are a creationist, you are somehow "anti-science".

Show me a creationist who embraces evolutionary theory and I'll accept that the "polar assumption" is incorrect.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Duh!, that doesn't even need to be said. The whole point of science is that peer review combined with disparate opinions and experimental observation eventually leads to correct results. This is shown to be true by the technology science produces. In the long run, it has always been immune to the bias of its practitioners.

I can't believe the only criticisms you people can come up with are "scientists are people", "science has got stuff wrong before" or a linear combination of both.

I mean it's because we are people and we can get stuff wrong that forms the foundation of the scientific method.

That's all I'm asking of you. Now apply that to the Creation/Evolution debate. Admit that there is scientific dispute on the issue, just as there is on the global warming issue. Peer -review has not yet resolved the latter - and since many scientists still dispute the Theory of Evolution, it has not yet resolved that issue also. It is only prejudice and fear that deny this.

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote:

Admit that there is scientific dispute on the issue,

The only meaningful scientific dispute is to do with the finer details of the mechanisms of evolution...not whether or not those mechanisms exist in the first place.

Only in the non-scientific dispute (as typified by creationists) is such a lack of acceptance in evidence.

It is only prejudice and fear that deny this.

If thats the case, then what, praytell, is it which denies the possibility of fallibility in the writing, transcription, translation and selection of work which entails the modern bible?

I find it so funny that you're hung up on getting scientists to admit "Something which we declare to be less than 100% cast in stone is, in fact, not 100% cast in stone"...whilst at the same time having no problem with the religious saying "we declare our correctness to be 100% cast in stone because despite evidence to the contrary we insist it is".

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

I find that an odd remark. A journalist misrepresents a scientist, and you consider that it shows that one cannot trust the impartiality of scientists.

I was thinking of the scientists he interviewed, not his personal comments. Are you saying they were imposters?

Hmm. Yes, I occasionally wonder why there is not slightly more committment by Christians to the 'stewardship of the earth' that they were give. Possibly the regularity with which fundamentalist Christians deny any possibility of climate change is a denial of that responsibility.

Christians should indeed be to the fore in the stewardship of the earth. It is not their property, just loaned to them by God. To ravage and pollute it is to show disrespect to its Creator. An applicable text:
Revelation 11:18 The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come,
And the time of the dead, that they should be judged,
And that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints,
And those who fear Your name, small and great,
And should destroy those who destroy the earth.”

I don't know of any Evangelicals who deny the possibility of climate change. I know some who think it unlikely that man is the cause of any significant change. I should think most accept there has been - and therefore is likely to be - significant climate change in the past.

But maybe you can name names?