What good is modern science?

[Mastermind]

Feel free to split the discussion then. I do want to discuss this with a theist though, if only to refine some of the rough edges on my own beliefs. Unfortunately, I gotta go to church right now though, so my reply can wait until after I come back and finish my history essay which is long overdue.

[Kurieuo]

Ok, although I didn't want to go so deep in the first place, I guess I don't really mind discussing if you think it'll help you in some way...

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

There is no real valid evidence for evolution. Most of the evidence they did have has been either disproved by science or disproved by the fact that the evidence was doctored.

*shakes head*

You see, statements like that tell me that you don't even know what the theory of evolution is. It is the theory that life has changed, or evolved over time. The existence of any fossils of species that do not exist now is evidence that evolution has occured.

[Anonymous]

Why would i refute Big Bang? I said atheist scientists try to alter Big Bang to avoid the fact that the universe had a beginning.

1. There are many chrsitians who hold that the big bang occured and that god started it. It is not an atheist theory.
2. It explains the beginning of our universe... how does it "avoid the fact that the universe had a beginning" if anything, the previous theory (stationary state) did that, the big bang does not. The big bang theory holds that the universe began about what is it, 13 billion years ago or so?

[Anonymous]

The thing with intelligent design is that it is a huge umbrella to fit under. I've heard everyone from young earth creationists who think that dinosaurs and humans walked side by side to peoeple who hold that scientific theories explain what happens, but that god was behind it call themselves supporters of intelligent design.

[Anonymous]

I believe God didn't reveal complex scientific laws in the bible because 1.) it would remove the idea of faith

Why would God want some sort of blind faith in himself, and therefore does not reveal any verifiable scientific claims in Bible?

Just look at the things this Jesus does in Bible. Miracles after miracles. Why? It seems rather obvious that the purpose of the miracles was to provide EVIDENCE for his claims. Same for Moses's magic shows in OT.

So, if Jesus provided evidence to his audience then, why should we be in a different position?

I mean, any decent evidence would do. Resurrection after decapitation would probably be a good one. Providing a genuine angel for examination would also do. Food replication, walking on water, just anything. And hey, these examples are ordinary NT stuff, I don't require anything else.

[Mastermind]

Err, only God can ressurect people, and he won't do it because He does not give in to the audacity of DEMANDING of him to perform a miracle. He performs miracles when He sees fit, not on demand.

*Providing an angel for examination* You might be dissapointed, especially if the angel chooses to incarnate in a human body.

*Food replication* If our nanobot technology was advanced enough, we could do it. We could basically turn air atoms into fish and bread. It is theoretically possible, we're simply not advanced enough to do it.

*walking on water* Again, this is scientifically possible. Some people can even swim by "walking" through water.

[Mastermind]

and if you want proof of the supernatural, you can start by researching thoroughly investigated hauntings for which scientists were unable to provide an answer.

[Anonymous]

Investigations of hauntings tend to fall into the realm of pseudo science...

[Mastermind]

Of course they do. Anything that threatens an atheist's safety zone is considered "pseudoscience".

[Kurieuo]

I think you missed magi42's point Mastermind. His point was God does not expect one to have a blind faith, as otherwise Christ would have come saying, "believe and follow me," without offering up evidence for His claims of deity. Indeed "blind faith" seems very incompatible when one looks at what Christ provided in order for others to believe.

Kurieuo.

[Mastermind]

That's what I thought at first but then I read the last paragraph. I wasn't quite sure if it was sarcasm, so being the ass that I am, I assumed it wasn't. And I will continue to assume that until proven otherwise. :p

[Kurieuo]

The thing with intelligent design is that it is a huge umbrella to fit under. I've heard everyone from young earth creationists who think that dinosaurs and humans walked side by side to peoeple who hold that scientific theories explain what happens, but that god was behind it call themselves supporters of intelligent design.

Yes, it is a huge umbrella, and I think this is one reason why the core IDer's do not currently want it taught in schools as Science. Infact if it was, because ID has no true boundaries, YECs could smuggle in under ID, and then begin teaching a young earth. This, many critics of ID would be proven correct in there claims that ID is just Creationism is disguise.

There are many within, however, that have stressed they should be more forthcoming in defining certain boundaries of their umbrella. For example, noone within the scientific community takes YECs seriously, and even remember reading an admittance I believe that there is no known secular scientist who has been convinced of YECs evidence for a young earth.

Anyway, what seems to be happening is a splintering where people develop their own model under the ID umbrella. Thus, things largely seem to carry on as before. Until ID can define certain boundaries, and propose an overarching model of some sort, then I think they should simply continue pushing that the evidence for and against "evolution" be taught.

Kurieuo.

[Kurieuo]

That's what I thought at first but then I read the last paragraph. I wasn't quite sure if it was sarcasm, so being the ass that I am, I assumed it wasn't. And I will continue to assume that until proven otherwise. :p

[Anonymous]

Forget the sarcasm. The question was, as pointed by Kurieou, why would God require blind faith from us (without evidence), when he didn't require such thing from the followers of Jesus.

It would seem that the blind faith thing is a later invention. It is of course very convenient, as it immunises a religion (or any other belief system) from doubt. Then you don't have to provide any other reason but "just take my word". Any religion could rely on that. I think Islam does. Some Christian denominations apparently do not, as miracles (or anecdotal evidence of such) are central part of their faith.