Tagged: science Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • TFRStaff 6:25 am on 2017-01-26 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , science   

    Apologetics Press Science Seminar THIS WEEKEND – Jacksonville, AL 

    Here is a link that provides the topics as well as a quick bio of the speakers.

     
  • Eugene Adkins 8:02 am on 2016-11-24 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , science   

    Those fountains of the great deep 

    In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” (Genesis 7:11 – NKJV)

    One of the things that many people forget, or just plain out never knew, about the Bible’s account of the global flood is that the scriptures recount how water not only came down from the sky – it came up from the depths of the earth.

    I know, I know…a global flood survived by eight people and a whole lot of animals on a big boat. That’s ridiculous mythological kid stuff, right? After all, it’s impossible! There isn’t enough water on the Earth to flood the Earth. At least that’s how most “intellectuals” treat the story of the world’s accountability for sin and God’s ability to judge both.

    And yet, the Bible never ceases to amaze me when it comes to the little details which were recorded long, long before “modern-day” science even thought of knowing such, much less observing it.

    For example, remember those fountains of the great deep that were broken up? Listen to this excerpt from a newly published study entitled, Deepest water found 1000km down, a third of way to Earth’s core: (More …)

     
    • docmgphillips 10:48 am on 2016-11-24 Permalink | Reply

      Yeah…It is truly amazing how often science “proves” something that we had already found in the Bible…yet they refuse to acknowledge that the Bible is truth.

  • TFRStaff 6:51 am on 2016-04-01 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , science   

    Do Atheists Believe in Miracles? 

    Atheism’s Contradictory Supernatural “Natural” Explanations

    Atheism contends that a supernatural Creator does not exist. Allegedly, a supernatural Being is unnecessary in our material Universe. Everything can be explained purely naturally through a study of the natural world. In short, nature exists “naturally,” not supernaturally.  Read >>

    AP Web Logo

     
    • James McFerrin 6:00 pm on 2016-04-01 Permalink | Reply

      I guess that I’m not smart enough to understand how something can come from nothing. It’s much easier to understand that God did in fact CREATE something from nothing.

  • John T. Polk II 9:36 am on 2015-05-27 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: blind faith, , , science   

    5-28-2015 God versus “Climate Change #3 

    Paul warned: “O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge– by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith (1 Timothy 6:20-21 NKJV). “Climate Change” is one of the recent “contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge.” Science can only deal in what may be demonstrated, and the age of the Earth and weather patterns cannot be demonstrated but merely “guesstimated.” “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1 NKJV). “Climate Change” has no “evidence,” but only wild guesses and estimates to support it. “Climate Change” is founded upon “blind faith” but the Bible faith has factual “evidence” to support it! If “the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch” (Matthew 15:14).

    This is Johnny Polk, with “Words of Wisdom” brought to you by the Oneida church of Christ.

     
  • Eugene Adkins 8:22 am on 2015-03-01 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , science   

    Atheists may end up believing in an eternal creator after all 

    There was no big bang that created the universe.

    That’s not a Christian saying that either (although I agree with the statement on its surface). According to this proposed scientific theory, the universe is eternal!

    All that scientific cozying up to the big bang for nothing!?

    But the greatest irony of the story’s conclusion, at least to me, is that atheists may end up believing in an eternal creator after all. How interesting.

     
    • makagutu 11:15 am on 2015-03-01 Permalink | Reply

      maybe it is not your fault, but how would an eternal universe need a creator?

      • Eugene Adkins 8:21 pm on 2015-03-01 Permalink | Reply

        Without painting with too broad a brush, the average atheist belittles and makes a laughing point out of the theist for believing in something/someone who exists as a creator and who created all things but did not need to be created. Yet now, according to this new “scientific” knowledge, there are some atheistic scientists (at least the ones who ascribe their belief to this new theory) who in fact believe in something that needs no creator. I just see this as interesting irony.

        • makagutu 11:04 pm on 2015-03-01 Permalink | Reply

          Eugine, I still don’t understand you.
          One it is an hypothesis. Two it says the universe could be eternal which means it didn’t need a creator. The BB was an hypothesis. It did not say the universe was created, no, it only meant there was a singularity. There is no irony. It is you who misunderstand

      • Eugene Adkins 6:54 am on 2015-03-02 Permalink | Reply

        The Big Bang theory says the universe had a beginning, but now the new hypothesis says that the universe had no beginning because it has always been; since atheistic scientists ultimately believe that the universe is their “creator”, they thus believe in a creator that had no creator.

        That was the point of my post’s title and that’s about as simply as I can put it for you.

        Thanks for commenting.

        • makagutu 6:58 am on 2015-03-02 Permalink | Reply

          Now I see. The problem is you don’t understand the bb cosmology. One the bb talks of a singularity, and is silent about what was before if we can talk of a before.
          The rest of your statement is a strawman.

    • docmgphillips 1:12 pm on 2015-03-01 Permalink | Reply

      I find it quite interesting that those who have faith in science often have to revise their credo, while those of us who have faith in God alone have never had to revise our credo. That says something, doesn’t it?

      • Eugene Adkins 8:08 pm on 2015-03-01 Permalink | Reply

        Without doing intentional damage to the text, they are “ever learning” so it’s a by-product (2 Timothy 3:7).

    • meanlittleboy2 11:55 pm on 2015-03-01 Permalink | Reply

      Reblogged this on meanlittleboy2.

    • James Craven 7:56 am on 2015-03-02 Permalink | Reply

      Actually , it’s the reverse. They used to say it was eternal. However , because of the first and second laws of thermodynamics and because they can see how the Universe is expanding they no longer say that. See the website , Apologetics Press or Brad Harrub’s Focus Press.

    • James Craven 8:13 am on 2015-03-02 Permalink | Reply

      There was a “Big Bang” that created everything! It was created by an Eternal Being! His name is God!

  • John T. Polk II 7:58 am on 2015-02-20 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , science, scientific facts   

    2-20-2015           Science Depends Upon “Faith” 

    Scientific conclusions stated as fact can be a matter of “faith” because “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1 NKJV). Science says “no two snowflakes are alike.” Have they examined every snowflake that has fallen on us this week? No. But every snowflake they have examined is different, therefore a reasonable conclusion is “no two snowflakes are alike.” The evidence they have points to a conclusion beyond their sight. That’s exactly how we know God exists: the overwhelming evidence we have demands the conclusion that only God could have done it. “He who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6 NKJV). Make sure your “faith” has facts first.

    This is Johnny Polk, with “Words of Wisdom” brought to you by the Oneida church of Christ.

     
  • TFRStaff 7:04 am on 2015-01-07 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , science   

    3 Good Reasons to Believe the Bible is from God – Apologetics Press 

    The Bible is the most popular book that has ever been printed. It was one of the first books mass produced on Gutenberg’s printing press in 1455. To estimate a total number of Bibles and portions of it that have been produced and distributed worldwide throughout history would be virtually impossible, but the number stands well over 10 billion, since the United Bible Society alone has distributed over nine billion in the past 70 years (“God Facts,” n.d.). Without dispute, the Bible is the best selling book of all time worldwide (“Best Selling…,” 2014).

    Read >>

     
    • Pete 9:39 pm on 2015-01-07 Permalink | Reply

      I believe that the bible is the inspired word of God. I do not think your posting (3 reasons to believe the bible is from God) show any reasons for this assumption. I read this post in the science section of WordPress and I think those that read this section need quite a bit more tangible facts than it is the most p[popular book in the world.

      • Eugene Adkins 6:46 am on 2015-01-08 Permalink | Reply

        Hello, Pete.

        Thanks for sharing your thoughts/concerns.

        If memory serves me correctly, when the article referred to the supporting evidence of the Bible being from God in relation to science I don’t think AP’s major claim was that the Bible is the most popular book in the world. I believe their point revolved around the Bible’s scientific claims, and behaviors toward sicknesses and general health, that were made previous (and by previous, we’re talking multiple millennium’s worth of time with some) to any knowledge “gained/proven” by the modern secular scientific world.

        I would encourage anyone to check out “REASON #2: SCIENTIFIC ACCURACY AND FOREKNOWLEDGE” for what I am referring to; and hence you’ll find the reason that the article was given a science tag. In that section, the particular phrase (or anything else close to it) “the Bible is most popular book in the world” is not used/given as a reason for scientific evidence.

  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on 2014-10-23 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , science   

    What an atheist did answer, then me (2) 

    QUESTION: What’s your view of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris?

    ATHEIST: I am not sure who Harris is. Dawkins and Hitchens are brilliant minds who have studied extensively and who present their concerns passionately.

    CHRISTIAN: Whatever capability these men have (or might have had) is thrown away because of a willful acceptance toward a naturalistic ideology. It can be said: there are no dead atheists. They went into the realm of death as an atheist, but on the other side of life they are not!

     
    • Godless Cranium 10:11 am on 2014-10-23 Permalink | Reply

      Since you have no way of knowing what happens after you die, your argument is specious at best. You might find Zeus on the other side, and be thrown in the same place as an atheist for believing in the wrong God.

      You would like to ‘throw away’ their arguments merely because they’re atheists, but that doesn’t counter anything they’ve said and shows a complete lack of willingness to listen on your part.

      • I 53:5 Project 10:24 am on 2014-10-23 Permalink | Reply

        Zeus? Come on.

        • Godless Cranium 1:09 pm on 2014-10-23 Permalink | Reply

          No less silly than an ancient Jewish Carpenter. Zeus was well subscribed to back in the day.

          • I 53:5 Project 1:13 pm on 2014-10-23 Permalink | Reply

            Silly? Are you aware that there is a substantial amount of evidence to back up my beliefs?

            http://thei535project.wordpress.com/2014/10/14/is-there-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-christ/

            • Godless Cranium 1:19 pm on 2014-10-23 Permalink

              Your evidence is the bible, which claims its true, and those claims must be believed because the bible says so.

              Not very convincing.

              Your article also has many factual errors, not uncommon within the Fundamentalist community.

              There were no witnesses. The bible claims there were witnesses. I could write that my brother rose from the dead and 500 people witnessed it. That doesn’t make it true nor likely.

              I often wonder if Christians read their own bible, since most of the events you mentioned in your article happen slightly different in the gospels. The gospels don’t even agree with one another.

              You have to do better than this if you want to convince someone your ancient Jewish carpenter is going to come back from the dead.

              And yes…I think it’s a silly belief. Just as silly as Zeus or any other God.

            • I 53:5 Project 1:31 pm on 2014-10-23 Permalink

              The fact that I thought it would take you longer to read the rather lengthy article I linked to aside, your reply is exactly as substantive as I thought it would be.

              This leads me to believe that your rejection of faith is based more on presuppositions than it is on evidence and academics.

              Why is that?

            • Godless Cranium 1:37 pm on 2014-10-23 Permalink

              No. I read it sir.

              I also notice you don’t bother to engage or refute anything I said. You merely try to insinuate that I didn’t read it or that I wasn’t ‘substantive’ enough.

              I read a lot. I’m quite fast at it, especially when it contains the same incorrect talking points I hear all the time.I can often read an entire novel in less than a day. I also type quickly and can write articles quickly.

              None of that has anything to do with the silly belief that an ancient Jewish carpenter is going to return once more. If it weren’t a societal norm, you’d probably think it as silly as belief in Zeus or any of the thousands of Gods that came before Jesus.

            • I 53:5 Project 1:43 pm on 2014-10-23 Permalink

              I wasn’t insinuating anything, merely stating that there was a lot of evidence in that article and all you came back with was that you think Christianity is as silly as Zeus.

            • Godless Cranium 2:12 pm on 2014-10-23 Permalink

              Then you failed to read my reply. There was more in it than Zeus. That was merely the ending.

            • I 53:5 Project 2:50 pm on 2014-10-23 Permalink

              OK. Let’s talk about the ending.

              Do you really believe there is as much evidence for Zeus as there is for the Christian God?

              Keep in mind we both don’t believe in Zues for different reasons.

              I don’t believe in Zeus becuae there is only one true God, you don’t believe in Zues because you don’t believe in any Gods.

            • Godless Cranium 3:13 pm on 2014-10-23 Permalink

              I just wanted to say thanks for the follow. I’ve Aldo followed your blog and look forward to further discussions.

              I think there is the same sparsity of evidence. The people who believed in Zeus or Allah or Vishnu are just as wrong as you and rely on the same type of evidence to uphold their claims.

            • I 53:5 Project 4:44 pm on 2014-10-23 Permalink

              You’re welcome! I follow a few atheist bloggers and, for the most part, enjoy the discussions.

              I also value their opinion, and respect their worldview.

    • magnocrat 3:23 pm on 2014-10-23 Permalink | Reply

      These men were not willful they were just humans trying to come to terms with the world and make sense of it.

      • Tiffany 12:32 pm on 2015-03-03 Permalink | Reply

        From Wikipedia, quoting reviews of Christopher Hitchens’ God is not Great:
        David Bentley Hart, reviewing the book in the journal First Things, interpreted the book as a “rollicking burlesque, without so much as a pretense of logical order or scholarly rigor”.[David B. Hart (2010-04-20). “Believe It or Not”. First Things. Retrieved 2014-01-05.] In his review, Hart states that, “On matters of simple historical and textual fact, moreover, Hitchens’ book is so extraordinarily crowded with errors that one soon gives up counting them.” Hart notes that Hitchens conflates the histories of the 1st and 4th crusades, restates the long discredited assertion that the early church destroyed ancient pagan texts, and asserts that Myles Coverdale and John Wycliffe were burned alive when both men died of old age in addition to many others. [David B. Hart (2010-04-20). “Believe It or Not”. First Things. Retrieved 2014-01-05.]

        I would not state in any way, shape or form that Hitchens or Dawkins was a brilliant mind or offered anything other than derivative theories mixed with venting their spleen over Catholic traditions. Let’s be clear: both men grew up near the Catholic tradition; both have been influenced by the atheism pervading UK society; and both list all the evils of religion without once actually referencing a single real, Biblical truth. The abuses of priests? Nothing to do with the Bible. The hatred in racism? Nothing to do with the Bible. The poisonous Crusades & wars in the name of God? Well, nothing to do with the New Testament.

        The one thing they both hate: the Creation as outlined in Genesis. That is the beginning of the Bible for one reason: either you believe there’s an answer outside humanity (God), or you don’t. And if you do, then either He did or He didn’t inspire Scripture. And if He did inspire Scripture, then Creation is true. An atheist starts from the position in the negative (a – theism = not a theist, does not believe in God); therefore they will find whatever jigsaw puzzle pieces they can force together, push squares through round logic holes, and do whatever it takes to make sure there is no god in Creation. There may be nothing, then something (Big Bang)… but that’s not God. There may be some striking similarities in all animals (e.g., hearts pump blood – and they never are used for hearing, say; arms & legs are attached via joints of some fashion; eyes are used for sight and are placed on the ‘head’ of the animal)… but of course this is all coincidence, no Divine Architect in sight. They cry foul if anyone hints at ‘Intelligent Design’ in a scientific discussion of biology – yet if Evolution is a theory, surely other theories can be discussed, too?!

        Evolution is not fact. During my lifetime, most of what scientists told me about Evolution has changed: Darwin’s finches are adaptation, not evolution, by the way. And Darwin supposed there would be more and more diversity in the animal record as time progresses. Yet in modern times we are wailing about all these extinctions, pleading to protect endangered species. Funny, since the Evolutionist’s thought of Survival of the Fittest would say these endangered species are clearly not fit to survive. The idea of the Big Bang has come and gone; the chart of ape to human progression has been revised so many times – and yet no two biologists will agree on the sequence and timing till date. The notion that the human embryo mimics earlier species, e.g., gills & webbed feet before arms & lungs, has been entirely discredited. Dinosaurs got heavily revised thanks to computer modelling – and now they are not reptilian, they are avian in nature.

        But hey, this Evolution theory thingy, it can’t be questioned. Well… I’m questioning it. I find it way too riddled with discrepancies, errors and pure flights of fancy to be plausible. Besides, it is based entirely on human logic, which of course can be just as flawed as the next human standing. Why believe another human’s logic? There must be a higher power to sort out all the order and natural laws in place in this Earth. And guess what? God’s word has remained the same and unchanged for nearly 2000 years!

        Take that, Darwin, Dawkins & Hitchens. Will anyone remember you in 2000 years? I think not.

        • Ron Thomas 3:24 pm on 2015-03-03 Permalink | Reply

          Very good!

          On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:32 PM, The Fellowship Room wrote:

          >

    • Jack 6:38 pm on 2014-10-23 Permalink | Reply

      -Jesus Christ was, and is, a person , not a thing, not a doctrine, not a theory. Infidelity is not a person, not a thing, not a theory. There may be a theory of it, but it is not a theory. They cannot be philosophically, logically, rationally compared. They are neither logical nor literal contrasts. The infidel is but the incarnation of a negative idea, a mere negation. He stands to Christianity as darkness stands to light. Is blindness anything but the lack of sight? Is unbelief anything but the repudiation of empirical evidence?

      For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and set aside the understanding of the understanding ones. Where [is the] wise? where scribe? where disputer of this world? has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
      For since, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom has not known God, God has been pleased by the foolishness of the preaching to save those that believe.
      Since Jews indeed ask for signs, and Greeks seek wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews an offence, and to nations foolishness; but to those that [are] called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ God’s power and God’s wisdom.
      Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
      [1 Corinthians 1:19-25] (Darby)

  • TFRStaff 7:08 am on 2014-10-23 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , science   

    There's No Such Thing as a Naturalist by Apologetics Press 

    A very plain but excellent article that addresses the “elephant in the room” when it comes to the theory of naturalism:

    The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms defines “natural science” as, “Collectively, the branches of science dealing with objectively measurable phenomena…” (2003, p. 1402). A naturalist, then, is a person who believes everything in the Universe must be able to be explained through purely naturalistic processes–with no supernatural help. Everything believed must be based on empirical evidence that is “measurable.” According to the National Academy of Sciences, “The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes. The statements of science are those that emerge from the application of human intelligence to data obtained from observation and experiment” (Teaching About Evolution…, 1998, p. 42, emp. added). Read >>

     
  • TFRStaff 2:52 am on 2014-01-28 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , science   

    Bill Nye: The (Pseudo-)Science Guy 

    An interesting read from the latest AP Newsletter:

    AP Web Logo

    Bill Nye: The (Pseudo-)Science   Guy 
    In light of the coming debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on February 4th, we wish to recall your attention to Bill Nye’s statements several months ago regarding Creation and evolution.

    Many of us who are scientists grew up watching “Bill Nye the Science Guy,” and learned to love science in the process. Sadly, Bill Nye came out in 2012 with a video that indicates he is vehemently opposed to parents who teach children that evolutionary theory is false. In a YouTube video posted by BigThink.com, Nye said:

    Read >>

     
    • John Henson 11:38 am on 2014-01-30 Permalink | Reply

      Another incidence of the super educated denying the evidence right before their eyes (Romans 1:18-21).

  • Eugene Adkins 1:24 pm on 2013-02-24 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , science   

    Atheistic Propaganda Machine 

    Here’s a good article from the church in Wise, Virginia called “Atheistic Propaganda Machine“. I’m using it in next week’s bulletin at Keltonburg and I thought some here might find it useful too.

    Quote:

    “So when someone excludes supernatural causes from science on the basis of that they cannot be observed, yet include the vast multitude of natural causes that cannot be observed as science, what they are really doing is practicing philosophical naturalism (PN).

       This assumption of PN essentially means that science is no longer looking for the best explanation or ‘the truth’, but instead merely looking for the best naturalistic explanation. The once noble aim of science is reduced to an atheistic propaganda machine.”

    http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2007/09/methodological-naturalism.html

    —posted by Alan Grey; September 20, 2007

       There is no observable cause of the so-called “Big Bang”. Thus, it is merely an unobserved naturalistic theory, and it is offered because the Philosophy of Naturalism calls for only a natural explanation or cause. God cannot be allowed to be the cause, even though He gave His testimony. There is no observable cause for the origin of life. Thus, the evolution of life from random chemical processes is merely an unobserved naturalistic theory, and it is offered because the Philosophy of Naturalism calls for only a natural explanation or cause. God cannot be allowed to be the cause, even though He gave His testimony. So, even if it is TRUE that God created the heavens and the earth, it is not TRUTH that the scientific method really wants. It wants only the best naturalistic explanation even if it is not actually TRUE. So, as Grey points out, the sciences are good for certain observable causes and repeatable things that pan out into practical things we can enjoy, but the sciences have been hijacked by the Philosophy of Naturalism when trying to explain the origin of the universe, the origin of our Solar System, the origin of life, and the origin of man. The hijacked sciences have been duped and deceived into accepting the Philosophy of Naturalism without the slightest bit of proof. You can look for truth or you can look for the best naturalistic explanation of things, but unless you can prove naturalism is all there is, truth and naturalistic explanations are NOT the same thing. — Terry Benton

    It’s from the “Know Your Bible” email; Volume 12, Number 4; February 24, 2013

     
    • The Southern Rationalist 2:14 pm on 2013-02-24 Permalink | Reply

      Question: how would (or could) science even test for something supernatural? If supernatural explanations are admitted, then what does that mean for the regularity of physical laws that we do observe? Where a lot of people go wrong in castigating science for not allowing for supernaturalism is that if scientists were to do so, it would no longer be science they are studying. The other side of that coin is that it leaves open the question of what it even means to propose some god–any god–as an explanation for a phenomenon when we frequently find perfectly good explanations that do not invoke a deity. It seems as if the chief objection to modern science is that it isn’t religious enough. Think of it this way: if God is brought into science, then so is any claim made about God, including virgin births, walking on water, resurrecting the dead. If the objection that those are miracles are made, then the logical conclusion is that the laws of chemistry, of physics, etc., really don’t mean anything, and it reduces science to meaninglessness.

      • Eugene Adkins 2:19 pm on 2013-02-24 Permalink | Reply

        Regardless of how any response is phrased or framed about the article the point still remains the same: science criticizes a belief in God because “God is not observable” but at the same time it teaches and promotes ideas and “theories” as laws while such has never been observed or proven.

        • The Southern Rationalist 2:33 pm on 2013-02-24 Permalink | Reply

          “Theories” such as?

        • Eugene Adkins 2:44 pm on 2013-02-24 Permalink | Reply

          Abiogenesis for one, but regardless my friend, out of your own mouth you have said that your point of view leaves no room for the supernatural.

          You (by that I mean people who ascribe themselves as atheistic scientific evolutionists) have come to a conclusion on the beginning of life that has not been observed or proven but because your mind is “made up” concerning supernatural causes you continue to search for a “natural” path that leads to that unalterable conclusion…but it will be to no avail.

          This gets us back to the emphasis of the article. You obviously disagree despite the fact that it says exactly what you’re saying. Thanks for commenting, but this is why I will ask you to just leave the conversation at this.

        • The Southern Rationalist 8:04 pm on 2013-02-24 Permalink | Reply

          No, I will not leave the conversation at this, because I am not saying the same thing as the article says, and I take exception to your statemement that effective states that I describe myself as an “atheistic scientific evolutionist.” In fact, I have done nothing of the sort, although your remark brings me that much closer to doing it.

          Here is the thing: at some point, the earth was lifeless. It had to have been by necessity, since the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and life didn’t crop up till about 3.8 billion years ago. Life came came up somehow, and it came up using non-living materials. In point of fact, there are several HYPOTHESES how life could have arisen from non-living materials, some of them rather promising. None of them confirmed. In short, science does not claim to know how life arose. In fact, scientists are rather open about the fact that it is one of life’s great mysteries. Any attempt to construe scientists as saying otherwise is dishonest.

          I also most certainly did NOT say that my point of view leaves no room for the supernatural, and you know it. What I said is that there is no room for supernatural explanations in science because it ceases to be science. In fact, I wrote about 500 words on that topic immediately following my comment on your thread.

          Lying for Jesus is still lying.

          • Eugene Adkins 6:26 am on 2013-02-25 Permalink | Reply

            I also most certainly did NOT say that my point of view leaves no room for the supernatural, and you know it. What I said is that there is no room for supernatural explanations in science because it ceases to be science.”

            Let’s see…you did NOT say that your view leaves no room for the supernatural??? But you DID say that there is no room for supernatural explanations in science???

            So, since (or “if” as you may be insinuating) your point of view is “science” then I guess that leaves no room for the supernatural in your point of view. How is that misrepresenting anything you just said? It does contradict what you did say, but what I said in no way misrepresents what you said. Your comments are saying exactly what the original post talked about.

            Then you go on to talk about the “promising” hypotheses (which are actually taught as fact…i.e. the big bang despite no proof of a big match, a big fuse or any big powder) that been “promising” for the last “300 years” in the eyes of atheists. When is something going to fail to be “promising” in science’s eyes? I guess it can’t because it has already reached a conclusion so it must find a path to reach that preconceived conclusion. My friend, science does claim to know how life arose. All you have to do is read a school textbook and you’ll see that it’s full of the unproven and unobserved big bang and evolution theories being presented as the answer to the origin of life.

            And by the way, just so you know, I read your blog entry yesterday…along with others. You can continue to tell people that you’re not a Christian nor an Atheist; and you can continue to call creationism a nuisance, but my friend, you can’t continue to deny that your point of view (if it’s based upon your own definition of science) leaves no room for the Supernatural.

            Again, I appreciate you commenting, but I will please ask that you allow the conversation to end here. You will not win the debate with me, and unfortunately I will not win the debate with you so lets just consider this the end of the “debate” as of now.

            • The Southern Rationalist 1:03 pm on 2013-02-25 Permalink

              I said that SCIENCE has no room for the supernatural, because then it would cease to be science. If you are equating what I say about science with my religious views, then that is your failure to understand, but I have a hard time accepting that you would make such a gross error. Further, abiogenesis is NOT taught as fact (there’s that misrepresentation thing again). Your characterization of the Big Bang is also a gross oversimplification (the “big match” quip is nothing if not laughable in its mischaracterization of what the Big Bang was, and how current astrophysics understands the term).

              I would be happy to end the conversation, when you stop lying about what science actually teaches, and about what I actually say and believe. I’m really not trying to win a debate, because you’re arguing religion, and I’m arguing science: two different subjects. As far as science not needing the supernatural and how that relates to my point of view, my *actual belief*, if you can bother to represent that correctly, is that I don’t care enough about any concept of god to give it much thought. That is fundmantally different from believing or disbelieving. It simply does not enter my worldview. Science not having room for the supernatural is about as atheistic as not needing fan belt gremlins to explain why your car is squealing as it is idling.

              I stand by what I said: lying for Jesus is still lying. And by lying, I mean claiming that people say something when they actually said nothing of the sort.

            • Eugene Adkins 1:48 pm on 2013-02-25 Permalink

              So your big point is that you’re arguing for/against something that you don’t supposedly care about or believe in.

              You say abiogenesis is not taught as fact in science but you just said, “Life came up somehow, and it came up using non-living materials.”

              Life from non-life with no supernatural involvement??? Something that has never been observed or proven. Sounds like abiogenesis to me.

              None of your comments…let me rephrase that – all of your comments have shown the original point of the article to be true. This is why I asked that the conversation be ended before this point, and also why I’m ending the discussion now. Not trying to be rude, but further discussion would be fruitless and I have fairly allowed you to make your point.

  • Ed Boggess 10:33 am on 2011-02-10 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , science   

    Science and faith enemies? – JAM 

    The headline read: “Science and religion are not friends!” The author, Jerry Coyne, declared “science and faith are fundamentally incompatible.” Coyne is one of a new breed of atheists who have united in a campaign to destroy Christianity. He would call me an “irrational faith-head” and announce that I am the enemy. Well, I am a faith-head all right but I believe because there is reason to believe the reasons multiply as time goes on. Over and again scientific research proves that people who believe and practice the teachings of Christ are happier with a higher degree of satisfaction in life. They are healthier physically, mentally and emotionally, and they live longer. As far as I am concerned science and faith are not in competition. This is Just-A-Minute

     
  • Ed Boggess 9:05 am on 2010-12-13 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , science   

    Science the solution? – JAM 

    In 2006 Time magazine conducted a poll that found 64% of Americans declared that if science disproved one of their religious beliefs, they would reject that science in favor of their faith. This makes absolutely no sense to unbelievers. But it makes sense to me. Why? First, how many things has science proved true, only to later recant and declare the opposite is true. Is coffee good for you or harmful to you? Second, why should I give up on something that has helped me through the toughest and most difficult of life situations? Faith has proven itself in my life over and over again. It has blessed me and my family multiple times and continues to do so. Why should I give up on it? This is Just-A-Minute with Ed Boggess

     
  • Ed Boggess 8:40 am on 2010-12-09 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , science,   

    Science wins? – JAM 

    October 11th (2010) the Forum section of the USA Today carried an article by Jerry Coyne, entitled “Science and religion aren’t friends”. In it Coyne claims that the two are at opposite poles antagonistic to each other, sworn enemies! He quotes noted atheist Stephen Hawking’s declaration: “Science wins because it works!” As far as winning is concerned, I didn’t know we were in a contest. Personally, I believe in the facts that science demonstrates as truth but I also proclaim to anyone who will listen: Faith works. Just ask the 33 Chilean miners who after ten weeks trapped deep underground were rescued. See them fall to their knees and give thanks to God. Hear them affirm that without God’s help they could not have escaped. In everything give God the glory! This is Just-A-Minute with Ed Boggess

     
  • Mike Riley 7:14 am on 2010-11-04 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , civility, decorum, , , official, , , science, ,   

    Incivility Overpowers Our Society 

    Ramnath Subramanian, a sixth-grade science teacher at Eastwood Knolls School in El Paso, writes for the El Paso Times on educational topics.

    In his Thursday article, http://www.elpasotimes.com/opinion/ci_16515180, he points out the following:

    “I applaud any effort by school officials to promote decorum and civility in the school milieu. However, I am acutely aware of the fact that family, community, and the popular culture play a larger and more defining role in children’s lives than schools.”

    Yes, education begins in the home (Ephesians 6:4; cf. Genesis 18:16-19).

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel