#89920 - 07/28/06 09:17 PM
Re: Clifford Gets It Wrong - Again
[Re: mausman]
|
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 4699
Loc: New England
|
Quote:
Thus, while it is possible to be a Christian and believe in evolutionic creation, it is nearly impossible to be a Seventh-day Adventist and believe in the same.
Approximately 50% of the science teachers in SDA colleges and universities disagree with you.
/Bevin
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#89921 - 07/28/06 09:22 PM
Re: Clifford Gets It Wrong - Again
[Re: Mandy]
|
Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 10416
Loc: CA
|
Quote:
bevin said:
Quote:
Secular huminists just cannot accept that religous people can actually be scientists
Science is a VERY vague term, covering everything from particle physics to geology. It is unified by the fundamental idea of trying to produce models that predict the future most of the time with a high degree of accuracy.
Certainly a person can do this, while also believing in God and miracles, because miracles that violate the models that have been developed so far don't happen frequently.
There is NOTHING in this fundamental idea that says God could not exist, Jesus could not exist, or Jesus could not be the Son of God. The models that science has developed so far allow all these to happen.
This is Clifford's first fundamental error. He does not realize that science does not preclude miracles.
Clifford's second fundamental error is to think that, to be religious, one has to accept a short-age recent creationism. This is simply not true - there are many sincere Christians who believe that the evolutionary model most accurately predicts what we find un the universe around us, and who understand that the short-age creation model as currently proposed usually can not predict what we find.
I know lots of them myself, and am in that group myself.
I know it is convenient for you to equate atheist and evolutionist but it is a false alignment.
/Bevin
First of all, what many sincere Christians believe should not be our model, no matter what that belief is. If we take that as our model, we can be led to almost any belief or practice, for there are sincere Christians who believe any number of things, including much that is false. I believe that our only model, when it comes to determining our doctrines and faith, has to be the Bible.
Secondly, science has shown a very poor power of predicting the future; anyone who thinks it has done so to any significant degree needs to go recheck their facts. Scientists are constantly having to go back and not only make fundamental changes in what they think the facts are but in what they think the facts mean.
There is absolutely nothing wrong in science as long as it is used properly, and not depended on to take the place of God, the only true predictor. (Please see chapters 42 to 46 of Isaiah, especially 46:9-11.) The problem occurs when science attempts to replace the Bible or when scientists teach the Bible's origins are merely human; that is, when scientists try to take the place of the priest or pastor.
Science may not altogether preclude miracles at every point in history but it certainly does not take them into account. I'd like to know which miracle science has ever accepted. When was the last time you read a serious, scholarly discussion of the possibility of a miracle or of the possibility of God's existence in a journal like Scientific American, etc.? If there ever was such a discussion, you may be quite sure it did not conclude that God exists or that a true miracle has ever happened. It is doubtless true that some individual scientists have accepted the existence of God and have even accepted some miracles, but that doesn't really matter when it comes to a discussion of science and religion because science as a whole has never accepted the existence of God or a miracle. Basically science says that whether God exists or whether Jesus ever existed is completely irrelevent. If a rather small percentage of scientists are Christian believers, most scientists would say it is a personal matter and has nothing to do with science per se. Belief in God or in Jesus-- as the Bible describes them-- depends completely on acceptance of the Bible, not on science. That does mean, of course, that the Bible itself is not supported by a great deal of historical, and other, evidence. But it must be kept in mind that at bottom belief in God and in Jesus as Son of God remains fundamentally a Biblical teaching and was believed by millions of Christians long before the existence of modern science.
It is the Holy Spirit that causes us to believe in Jesus as our Lord and Savior. The scientific, or other, evidence is only back-up, but without it, we would still believe, our faith would still remain, because our faith is in Christ, not in science. We are "in Christ," not "in science."
_________________________
Turning and turning in the widening gyre/ The falcon cannot hear the falconer;/ things fall apart; the center cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world... Surely some revelation is at hand;/Surely the Second Coming is at hand. W.B. Yeats
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#89922 - 07/28/06 09:46 PM
Re: Clifford Gets It Wrong - Again
[Re: Mandy]
|
Administrator of Foro Adventista
Registered: 02/02/02
Posts: 17001
Loc: Rio Grande Valley, Texas
|
Quote:
Approximately 50% of the science teachers in SDA colleges and universities disagree with you.
Names please.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#89924 - 07/28/06 11:15 PM
Re: Clifford Gets It Wrong - Again
[Re: ]
|
Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 10416
Loc: CA
|
Correction of a typo in my previous post:
...That does NOT mean, of course, that the Bible itself is not supported by a great deal of historical, and other, evidence. But it must be kept in mind that at bottom belief in God and in Jesus as Son of God remains a Biblical teaching only, which thousands of Christians believed in even to the point of death, long before the existence of modern science...
_________________________
Turning and turning in the widening gyre/ The falcon cannot hear the falconer;/ things fall apart; the center cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world... Surely some revelation is at hand;/Surely the Second Coming is at hand. W.B. Yeats
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#89925 - 07/29/06 12:03 AM
Re: Clifford Gets It Wrong - Again
[Re: ]
|
Registered: 12/27/05
Posts: 3188
Loc: Ohio
|
I had one more Amen left, I'll go ahead and give you that one  . olger
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#89926 - 07/29/06 02:06 AM
Re: Clifford Gets It Wrong - Again
[Re: ]
|
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 4699
Loc: New England
|
Quote:
I believe that our only model, when it comes to determining our doctrines and faith, has to be the Bible.
Where do you think Abraham, Daniel, or Paul got their ideas from? None of them had the Bible.
The NT writers quote from non-Biblical sources.
Jesus pointed us to the world around us as well.
The only way to determine the meaning of the Bible is to examine the world around us - how do you think the selection of the books to include in the Bible was made?
Quote:
science has shown a very poor power of predicting the future;
That is because you misunderstand the concept. You think I am talking about predicting the path of societies, cultures, etc. I am not - these things are far too complex for us to be able to predict them from scientific equations.
I am talking about predicting the path of a thrown ball, the result of mixing two chemicals, what you will find when you dig up a section of the earth, what you will find when you examine the DNA of a man and a chimpanzee.
Quote:
I'd like to know which miracle science has ever accepted.
I'd like you to point to a single instance of a real miracle that is susceptible to scientific evaluation. That is to say, is either repeatable or was recorded using instruments capable of detecting and recording detailed physical measurements.
All the attempts to do so - for instance by studying the miracles on the Benny Hinn show - have turned up fraud, fraud, fraud, and misunderstanding.
Most miracles you read about that don't have obvious opportunities for fraud - medical or cultural examples such as someone recovering from a serious illness - usually hinge around events that are unlikely but possible within the framework of the normal scientific models. When you include the possibility of biased selection and biased reporting, they are well within that framework.
At camp meeting one year, someone asked the audience what they would do if there was a report of demon possession/activity going on just down the road. Some said they would pray, I said I would grab my video camera and go there to have a look and to film!
There has NEVER been a case of a well-documented demon-possession doing something outside the realm of our standard scientific models. I would love to be the first person to capture such on tape - but experience says the whole thing would evaporate into a bland case of fraud and misunderstanding.
/Bevin
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#89928 - 07/29/06 04:55 AM
Re: Clifford Gets It Wrong - Again
[Re: Mandy]
|
Administrator of Foro Adventista
Registered: 02/02/02
Posts: 17001
Loc: Rio Grande Valley, Texas
|
Sorry, bad link... and it sounds outdated too.
Here are a few of the scientists with PhDs teaching at Adventist universities;
Earth and Biological Sciences, LLU
Ford, Robert
Buchheim, H. Paul
Carter, Ronald,
Hayes, William
Gordon Atkins
Jennifer Andrews
Raul Esperante
Douglas Britton
L. James Gibson
Kevin Nick
Benjamin Clausen
Samuel Soret
Stephen Dunbar
Deparment Of Biological Sciences, WWC
Scott H. Ligman
David L. Cowles
Joseph G. Galusha
David F. Lindsey
James R. Nestler
Joan M. Redd
Department of Physics, WWC
Roy Campbell
Fred Liebrand
Department of Biology, SAU
Joyce Azevedo
David Ekkens
Ann Foster
Earl Aagaard
Lee Spencer
Keith Snyder
Neville A. Trimm, Jr.
Department of Chemistry, SAU
Rhonda Scott
Department of Biochemistry, UC
Kristin Fox
Brian Cohen
Department of Anthropology, UC
Karen Brison
Linda E. Cool
George Gmelch
Sharon Gmelch
Stephen Leavitt
Department of Chemistry, UC
James Adrian
Janet Anderson
Mary Carroll
David Hayes
Leslie Hull
Joanne Kehlbeck
Laurie Tyler
Karen Lou
Thomas Werner
These are just a few Adventist universities in the US. Others include: Atlantic Union College, Andrews University, Columbia Union College, La Sierra University, Oakwood College, Pacific Union College, and Southwestern Adventist University.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#89929 - 07/29/06 05:33 AM
Re: Clifford Gets It Wrong - Again
[Re: mausman]
|
Administrator of Foro Adventista
Registered: 02/02/02
Posts: 17001
Loc: Rio Grande Valley, Texas
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
SEARCH OUR SITE
|
|
This full membership income helps pay for hosting, advertising, domain names, software support etc etc
|
|
|
59 registered (aldona, Beryl, Bravus, Bruno, bygjymbo, CoAspen, Contented, darlene, Daryl Fawcett, Denise, dgrimm60, Doug, Dr. Lorraine Day, Ellen, fccool, Gladussee, Grace3, Gregory Matthews, Heather Cummings, Jerry D Thomas, John317, Kevin H, Kountzer, LifeHiscost, Liz, LynnDel, magilly46, melvin mccarty, mikeyswen79, Morning Glory, Nan, Neil D, Norman, olger, pkrause, Redwood, Robert, Suzanne Sutton, Taylor, TeensMom, truthseeker007, Vera, 17 invisible),
485
Guests and
191
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Registered: 06/21/00
Posts: 1234
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
