 |
Don't forget all the terrestrial plants and fungi, not to mention aquatic organisms (fresh water fish, crawdads, water beetles, which would not survive sea water.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Pasteur did not go to church. He was an inveterate workoholic and I'm guessing he was in the lab on sundays. His wife helped...
Hello again, Tj:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Hmmm. Either you don't understand science, or you don't understand religion. I'll opt for both.
excon
Good point. I've often wondered about all the micro-organisms that Noah couldn't see.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Well, at least in the case of bacteria, you'd only need one of each.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
No, and neither were you, so I have to take the word of the person who was.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Well you did suggest that good scientists are by and large not Christians.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Some people discuss the issue - others go after the people.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
No. I cited a 1997 study that showed that most elite scientists today do not believe in God or immortality. They are not just "not Christians." They are not anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
In particular, only 5.5% of elite biologists believe in God, and only 7.5% of elite physicists and astronomers believe in God.
That is a higher percentage than many surveys have given for belief in Biblical Christianity throughout the general population.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
And what, precisely, is "Biblical Christianity", as opposed to, say, the non- or un-Biblical kind? I suspect you've stated it on a thread somewhere, but I forget what you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Those who believe in Christianity as defined in the 66 books of the Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
I have never heard that only 5.5% (or 7.5%) of the general population believes in Biblical Christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
How is Biblical Christianity different from regular Christianity?
That's not a terribly explanatory answer. What must such a person believe in order to count as an adherent of "Biblical Christianity"? I'm guessing many professing Christians would claim to believe in Christianity as defined in the Bible. But, of course, at least some of those people wouldn't count as "Biblical Christians" as you use the term. So what are the distinctive marks of someone who believes "in Christianity as defined in the 66 books of the Bible"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Tom, by "Biblical Christianity," are you talking about biblical literalists such as yourself, as opposed to mainstream Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant Christians?
So you are saying that literalists make up 5-8% of the general population?
There is nothing called "regular" Christianity that I am aware of. But there are many churches which to one degree or another deny parts of the Bible, or add to it. Biblical Christianity accepts what the Bible says and accepts the Biblical mandate that it is to speak for itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
There is a book which would define it for you. It is called the Holy Bible. Check it out!Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I am not sure what you mean by a Bible literalists. I have seen a number of people, including some on this board who have tried to apply that label and them claim that I said things that I don't believe and have never said. I have also never used that label myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
This I cannot answer the second question because I am not sure as to what you mean by literalists.
Hmm. Evasion. Why not just explain to anyone reading this thread what "Biblical Christianity" is, as you understand it. You use the locution an awful lot. If you want people to understand you, and not misrepresent your views and the things you say, seems explaining an expression you use with great frequency, and which is clearly very important you and central to the way you view the world, would be quite useful both to you and to others. I'm sure you have an answer to so basic a question. This might be a great opportunity to share it with the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
By the way, I'm asking because I've heard different people explain it in different ways. I think it would be a useful contribution to the discussion if you explained your understanding of what "Biblical Christianity" means.
Hmmm... false accusations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
If you do not understand what Christianity is, it would take much more than just posting a few lines on a post on a discussion forum. If you truly want to understand what the Bible teaches about Christianity, send me contact information, and I will see if I can get someone to contact you where you live who can spend the time to guide you through the essentials of the Christian faith as taught in scripture.Quote:
Why not just explain to anyone reading this thread what "Biblical Christianity" is, as you understand it.
I mean, basically, someone who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old instead of 4.54 billion years old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Here's how I characterized it at post #39:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
You've already claimed to believe that the earth is about six thousand years old. You've also claimed that the creation story in Genesis is an accurate account of the creation of the universe. How about Noah and the flood? Did Noah have two of every creature on board a boat while the was flooded?Quote:
The way you read it. E.g. the earth is six thousand years old. The creation story is a literal descriptions of the events of the creation of the universe. Noah had a boat with two of every creature aboard. That sort of thing.
Oh, you mean someone who believes the Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
You have also claimed that I believe things that I don't and there is much much more in the Bible than these couple of points - you might have noticed how big the Bible is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I see. So you don't want to explain what you mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I just have one last question about this. Is there such thing as "unBiblical Christianity"? In other words, is "Biblical Christianity" (whatever you take that to be) exhaustive of what counts as Christianity, or is there an "unBiblical Christianity" which is nevertheless still Christianity?
Right now I'm asking about Noah and what he had on the boat. Do you believe that Noah had two of every creature on the boat with him? Seems like a perfectly straightforward question. Do you read the story of the flood literally?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Well, to get back to my point, there are scientists who cannot accommodate religion and literalists who cannot accommodate large tracts of science.
In between are tens of millions of people who find ways to accommodate science and religion. But I do think it's telling that the best scientists don't have much use for religious belief. It suggests to me a degree of incompatibility between the two kinds of thinking.
I see. So you don't want to understand. I made an offer to you, and you chose to reject it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
There is no such thing as unBiblical Christainity in reality, but there are many people who profess to be Christian but deny parts of the Bible or add to it. Jesus spoke about some such people in Matthew 7.Quote:
I just have one last question about this. Is there such thing as "unBiblical Christianity"?
To single out scientists is not appropriate. There are people from all walks of life who reject God, but that does not mean that accountants and Christianity are not compatible, it does not mean that mechanics and Christianity are not compatible, it does not mean that bus drives and Christianity are not compatible. That is simple not logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
I don't know who these un-named so-called literalists are who you claim reject science. I don't know any, but I suppose that it always possible that there are some somewhere.
To be honest I don't care what scientists do in their personal life as long as they do good reproducible science that advances humanity's understanding of their world. A scientist could be a devil worshipper or a bigamist, it matters not in his data.
I agree. As long as the scientist does not allow his other beliefs or activities to influence the quality of the data, then it should not matter with respect to the work that he is doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
We are not discussing whether religion is compatible with accounting. We are discussing whether religion is compatible with science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I mean you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
Hey Tom, this is a momentous occasion. :)
Agreed, and the reasoning that you are using is not logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Then you are mis-representing and falsely accusing me. I have a strong background in science.Quote:
I mean you.
:) :)Quote:
Originally Posted by needkarma
I take your point about how you feel, but in terms of the science, I don't agree. Good scientists are not interested in things like devil worship. A few of them might accept bigamy, but basically they are too wrapped up in their work to deal with the complexities of multiple spouses. Your typical scientist would regard devil worship and bigamy as annoying distractions.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
You claim to speak on behalf of me (and mis-represent me), and now you claim to speak on behalf of scientist around the world. To put it kindly, that is pretty presumptuous.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Let me amend that. I'm speaking for good scientists. I think I've known enough of them to be sure they are NOT interested in devil worship. They are interested in getting tenure, getting their paper out before another researcher, being on the committee that assigns lab space in the new building... They are all wrapped up in their own worlds.
As for your technical qualifications, you are quick but if you are well read in any area of science, we haven't touched on it yet.
And could not, in your understanding, ever have outside interests that you don't know about :pQuote:
Originally Posted by asking
Again, sounds pretty presumptuous to me.
Well, from what I have seen, I am not too terribly concerned about your judgment on my qualifications.Quote:
As for your technical qualifications, you are quick but if you are well read in any area of science, we haven't touched on it yet.
I once knew a zoologist who spent his vacations square dancing with his wife. I've known several with an interest in motorcycles. But I've never known a good biologist whose main interest wasn't the science itself. If it's just a job, they are not going to be good scientists.
I don't think that a literal interpretation of the Bible is compatible with a scientific understanding of the world, at least not in the big picture sense. A person may pick the results that are useful to him personally or at least less repugnant. But that's like someone reading the Bible as literature, basically for fun.
Quite right.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
And the academic scientists I've known have also been in it for the science. Otherwise they could make lots more money elsewhere.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:16 PM. |