I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…

I thank God that it IS that easy, because I could never be “good” enough to even approach the standards of a Holy God. Not only that, but it gives hope to those who are already condemned by other religions solely for their past indiscretions.

If man was going to invent a religion, I don’t think he would invent Christianity because it challenges our logic and our very nature.

In a discussion, when you repeatedly make false claims about what the person you are arguing actually believes (as you have done in nearly every post you have made so far), the polite thing to do would be to admit you were wrong.

But hey, I wouldn’t want to get my expectations to high.

I never said it had NOTHING to do with my belief either. My worldview is centered on the belief that God did indeed create the world as told in Genesis. Of course this will influence how I am predisposed to view things.

The problem is that I don’t refute much of the “evidence” you give me nor do I think I have to refute it either.

for someone so upset for a cheap shot from my father you continue to make false claims about me and then little snipes like saying I have never read a peer reviewd paper before or that I deny the implications of science…blah blah blah.

This is the typical crap that I have come to expect from people like you.

Nathan, every time the subject of evolution comes up on these boards, you claim that there is no evidence for the “Macro” evolution you deny and that no one has given you any evidence for it.

I tried to define macroevolution for you, evolution between biological species. That wasn’t good enough. I demonstrated evolution between genera, that wasn’t good enough. I demonstrated evidence for evolution from a eukaryotic organism to a prokaryotic organism and that wasn’t good enough. I demonstrated evidence of evolution of A WHOLE ENTIRE METABOLIC PATHWAY IN BACTERIA and that wasn’t good enough, because bacteria are the same “kind”. You don’t seriously consider scientific evidence. You decide whether it works with your worldview and place it in either the “OK” or “WRONG” box.

That’s not good science. It’s you believing that evolution and Christianity is incompatible, and everything else deferring to that belief. Every few months, the topic comes up and you insist that there is no evidence of evolution. And yet you’ve never refuted any of mine.

I’m going to sleep now.

I don’t doubt it. I think most of it is completely wrong. It would be a rather long post explaing completely why.

“It can’t be because of the lack of evidence because I have on numerous occasions patiently refuted your problems with it”

I must have missed those conversations. Most of the ones I remember are more you questioning me on Creation and my trying to seperate the two discussions and then the discussion ending.

“AND offered plenty of evidence of my own. Is it because if it’s true, your faith will be lost?”

No, it is because I disagree.

“I’m just calling them as I see them.”

So far, you have made several false claims.

I have never made any such claim. As a matter of fact, I have even posted earlier this to JM Walker:

“I have said many times that one doesn’t have to believe in Creation to be a Christian.”

And, since you want to quote me, you might try doing so correctly, I said:

“(If Fvolution is true)…So you don’t even really have to believe there is a god.”

Which doesn’t translate into my claiming that if Evolution is true then Christianity must be false.

(these are not random big words, they are a few examples of all the evidence I’ve given you for evolution over the past few years)

That’s laughable. Go ahead, then, and work on refuting every piece of evidence for evolution I’ve given you. Do you want links to my previous posts? I’m willing to bet that you only deny them because it conflicts with your 6,000 year old creation story.

Be honest, and maybe we can get somewhere. You don’t deny the science, because you’ve probably never read a peer-reviewed paper in your life. You deny the implications of the science; that it might shatter your worldview.

If Christianity is true, evolution must be false.

That is what you subscribe to. You said so yourself, if evolution is true, then there is no need to believe in God (Christianity is false).

Why do you doubt evolution? It can’t be because of the lack of evidence because I have on numerous occasions patiently refuted your problems with it AND offered plenty of evidence of my own. Is it because if it’s true, your faith will be lost?

I’m just calling them as I see them.

And once again, you are forced to use the strawman logical fallacy. You keep making these assertions for what I believe which I have never made and… do not believe.

“A good scientist, to you, accepts the evidence gathered by the scientific method UNTIL IT CONFLICTS WITH YOUR BELIEF.”

I believe no such thing.

Ok then. Question for you. You claim to believe in God and want to live a Christ centered life.

So, if a “good scientist” is never satisfied with “God did it” then where do you think the God you claim to believe in…well… did anything?

Do you believe that Jesus really turned water into wine? That he really walked on water? That he really created enough food to feed thousands from only a handful?

Or is there some scientific explanation for those things beyond Jesus just doing it?

A good scientist, to you, accepts the evidence gathered by the scientific method UNTIL IT CONFLICTS WITH YOUR BELIEF.

A good scientist, for me, accepts the evidence gathered by the scientific method UNLESS IT CONFLICTS WITH HIS BELIEF, at which time he will design a research experiement to attempt to disprove the evidence. Should he fail, he will go with what the evidence supports.

A good scientist’s curiosity is not satisfied with “God Did It”.

Except for the fact that your argument is based on a premise that you merely assert as true which is not true for me, my father, or many people that I know of:

“Those who deny irrefutible evidence for evolution subscribe to the following”

Funny how you would get irritated over something I don’t believe anyone here is arguing.

I meant, of course, that If (not B) evolution is true, then Christianity (A) must be false.

before anyone jumps on my typo

If A, then B.

If (not B), then (not A).

Those who deny irrefutible evidence for evolution subscribe to the following:

If Christianity is the true faith, then _______.

If ________ is false, Christianity must be false.

(Here I’m using “evolution cannot be true” as the blank, but anything can follow).

If (not B) evolution is false, then Christianity (A) must be false.

Here’s the difference between those who deny any conflict between evolution in Christianity.

There is no syllogism or any deductive logic at work here. The premise is, Christianity is the true faith. That’s it. It doesn’t matter if abiogenesis turns out to be strongly supported. It doesn’t matter if Hindus and Muslims and Pagans get to heaven even if they haven’t accepted Christ as we understand it. It doesn’t matter if everything in the world points to the conclusion that there is no God. The truth of Christianity does not hinge on any of these things. It just is.

We cannot know God because we are merely human. There will always be uncertainty. All we can do is have faith.

We’ll raise our children as Christian. Our family will be Christ-centered. And we will do our best to nurture a curious and critical mind and a passion for scientific inquiry.

Believe it or not, you don’t have to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and that evidence for evolution doesn’t exist in order to be a Christian.

This, I think, is exactly the point.

If God gave us irrefutable evidence for his existence (such as a big yellow banner found in the deep sea that says I AM), what would be the point of faith? The universe, and the diversity of life, can easily be explained WITHOUT invoking the presence of a deity. That means, you don’t get to look for hard scientific evidence to support your belief. You have to go by the readings and teachings of Christ and the Church. You can, if you choose, to live a life completely apart from God-the evidence for that is astounding. The fact that you do believe even though there is a framework for non-belief is hard. And nobody said following God’s will and teaching is easy.

It’s kind of like if there was a man who loved you so dearly, that he anonymously gave you a bone marrow transplant when you were on the verge of death. If you had concrete proof in medical records that he saved your life, you would be obliged to love him back for what he did for you. Would that be true love? Probably not. But he probably wouldn’t want you to love him back out of obligation, he would want you to find out more about him from others and learn about him and grow to love him for what he did. And if you didn’t end up loving him back, he would be sad but let you go on with your life, blissfully unaware of his sacrifice. It is the faith that is important in Christianity. Having the faith to make the leap to believe that this guy gave you a new shot at life without any irrefutable evidence, just clues.

I am a scientist, an evolutionary biologist. And I am a follower of the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Christianity and reason are not mutually exclusive.

As it stands now, the diversity of life can be explained by science. The origins of life can be postulated by many theories, although I’m not sold on a particular theory. However, I won’t subscribe to a “God of the Gaps”, that is, if we can’t explain it it boils down to GodDitIt. If the evidence for a liposome giving rise to the first cell accumulates and becomes nearly irrefutable, I will accept it after reading the literature, and my faith in Christ will not diminish.

All of the evidence I’ve seen supports evolution, from developmental bio to microbiology to botany to zoology to molecular phylogeny. God is not a charlatan, trying to plant false evidence to test our faith. Rather, he has given us the ability for curiosity and scientific inquiry, and plenty of fields to explore our talents. Some people will choose to use it as an excuse to deny him. Others, like myself, will welcome it as a way to become closer to him.

And some will just lalalalala deny the science altogether.

What stake do whales have in our failings and why should they suffer for them?

This SC ruling will allow our subs to bang away with sonar that kills marine mammals AND paints a big target on “our fleet”

Oh an Nathan? Good night and know MY enemy is you.

Also known as training our anti-submarine forces to be able to detect submarine threats to our fleets during time of war.

But hey, we don’t need to train. Let our ships get sunk by the enemy.

Why must innocent animals suffer for the human failings of paranoia and war?

We have us one sick country these last 80 or so days before we are rid of bush and the cons. HOPEFULLY, change brings concern for the environment over concern for submarines.