Why is there such a quarrel with Christianity today?

[T-TownVol]

But has modern science, from the beginning of the 20th century, proved that there is no God, as some commentators now claim? Science is an amazing, wonderful undertaking: it teaches us about life, the world and the universe. But it has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth in the Big Bang. Biological evolution has not brought us the slightest understanding of how the first living organisms emerged from inanimate matter on this planet and how the advanced eukaryotic cells—the highly structured building blocks of advanced life forms—ever emerged from simpler organisms. Neither does it explain one of the greatest mysteries of science: how did consciousness arise in living things? Where do symbolic thinking and self-awareness come from? What is it that allows humans to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, engineering and medicine? And what enables us to create great works of art, music, architecture and literature? Science is nowhere near to explaining these deep mysteries.

This is from the article that Slice posted......too many on this thread believe that science "knows all" or "explains all".....it does not......it works with Christianity, not against it

 

[Orangeslice13]

But has modern science, from the beginning of the 20th century, proved that there is no God, as some commentators now claim? Science is an amazing, wonderful undertaking: it teaches us about life, the world and the universe. But it has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth in the Big Bang. Biological evolution has not brought us the slightest understanding of how the first living organisms emerged from inanimate matter on this planet and how the advanced eukaryotic cells—the highly structured building blocks of advanced life forms—ever emerged from simpler organisms. Neither does it explain one of the greatest mysteries of science: how did consciousness arise in living things? Where do symbolic thinking and self-awareness come from? What is it that allows humans to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, engineering and medicine? And what enables us to create great works of art, music, architecture and literature? Science is nowhere near to explaining these deep mysteries.

This is from the article that Slice posted......too many on this thread believe that science "knows all" or "explains all".....it does not......it works with Christianity, not against it

Believe it or not it was my unbelieving dad who, threw science, finally concluded that there had to be a creator. He convinced me. We both decided that if there is a G-d that we should seek him and worship Him as he wants.
If science and scripture disagree then either you're reading it wrong or science hasn't caught up.

 

[SuperDave]

Disproving God is a fools errand. There will always be room for belief. Proving the existence of God is also a fools errand. There is always room for disbelief.

Like I said before.. you can believe in anything but that doesn't it make it true. People believe in all kinds of crazy ****. Religion is the main one. The funny thing is people don't even know how the bible came to be.. where the god in it came from.. the devil.. how all these were created. It's not hard to find out but people would rather just believe what they have been told instead of knowing the truth. Unfortunately that's not how the world works. You can't just believe in something and then it's true. Christianity and every other religion have performed the biggest scam of all time. Making people believe outrageous claims with no proof. If you want to believe such nonsense go ahead but belief is not truth.

 

[SuperDave]

Flow Charts to help explain how this works.

 

[SuperDave]

 

[T-TownVol]

SD, You come after Christians like I used to go after LG........didn't work on him either, he's still here. #justsayn

Looking forward to that beer.....

 

[SuperDave]

SD, You come after Christians like I used to go after LG........didn't work on him either, he's still here. #justsayn

Looking forward to that beer.....

It's all religion but christianity is what I know and what I'm surrounded by. Make mine a long island ice tea.

 

[MercyPercy]

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Bet you believe in abiogenesis as the root cause of life. You nearly have to, in order to not believe in a higher power. That or you're brain dead.

Guess what... your explanation for the origins of life isn't science either, by the very definition in your meme above.

It isn't observable, testable, repeatable, and you must completely abandon the scientific method itself to believe that life magically sprang from a primordial soup of"rock wash" from "millions of years of rain".

Honestly it takes more faith to believe that something came from nothing than it does to believe that e every thing came from something.

You would never admit that though, faith is a dirty word to a poorly educated pseudoscientist. So you will just continue being intellectually dishonest instead. Kudos.

 

[T-TownVol]

Bet you believe in abiogenesis as the root cause of life. You nearly have to, in order to not believe in a higher power. That or you're brain dead.

Guess what... your explanation for the origins of life isn't science either, by the very definition in your meme above.

It isn't observable, testable, repeatable, and you must completely abandon the scientific method itself to believe that life magically sprang from a primordial soup of"rock wash" from "millions of years of rain".

Honestly it takes more faith to believe that something came from nothing than it does to believe that e every thing came from something.

You would never admit that though, faith is a dirty word to a poorly educated pseudoscientist. So you will just continue being intellectually dishonest instead. Kudos.

Why....just WHY....do you feed him?

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Why....just WHY....do you feed him?

You're right.

 

[SuperDave]

Bet you believe in abiogenesis as the root cause of life. You nearly have to, in order to not believe in a higher power. That or you're brain dead.

Guess what... your explanation for the origins of life isn't science either, by the very definition in your meme above.

It isn't observable, testable, repeatable, and you must completely abandon the scientific method itself to believe that life magically sprang from a primordial soup of"rock wash" from "millions of years of rain".

Honestly it takes more faith to believe that something came from nothing than it does to believe that e every thing came from something.

You would never admit that though, faith is a dirty word to a poorly educated pseudoscientist. So you will just continue being intellectually dishonest instead. Kudos.

At least you got something right... nice try.. I guess.
The Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, basic chemicals of life, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds in conditions intended to be similar to early earth.
See what science does.. it conducts tests and experiments(see flow chart how the process works). Christianity does not and can not do that. I did get a laugh out of the intellectually dishonest comment since that's what chrisitianity is based on. So... thank you for that.

 

[SuperDave]

Why....just WHY....do you feed him?

 

[PKT_VOL]

Bet you believe in abiogenesis as the root cause of life. You nearly have to, in order to not believe in a higher power. That or you're brain dead.

Guess what... your explanation for the origins of life isn't science either, by the very definition in your meme above.

It isn't observable, testable, repeatable, and you must completely abandon the scientific method itself to believe that life magically sprang from a primordial soup of"rock wash" from "millions of years of rain".

Honestly it takes more faith to believe that something came from nothing than it does to believe that e every thing came from something.

You would never admit that though, faith is a dirty word to a poorly educated pseudoscientist. So you will just continue being intellectually dishonest instead. Kudos.

If biological life from non-life is a problem for one side, it's a problem for the other.

Both sides give vacuous explanations to the mystery.

 

[PKT_VOL]

At least you got something right... nice try.. I guess.
The Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, basic chemicals of life, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds in conditions intended to be similar to early earth.
See what science does.. it conducts tests and experiments(see flow chart how the process works). Christianity does not and can not do that. I did get a laugh out of the intellectually dishonest comment since that's what chrisitianity is based on. So... thank you for that.

It was a hopeful step to a possible explanation. Not close to a solid explanation.

 

[SuperDave]

It was a hopeful step to a possible explanation. Not close to a solid explanation.

No its not a definite end but it is a very successful experiment at synthesizing complex organic molecules from simpler chemicals.

 

[Roustabout]

It was certainly an experiment.
"He assembled a closed system into which he pumped a mixture of gases (methane, ammonia and hydrogen). There was a flask of boiling water in order to add water vapour to the mixture and the gases were circulated around the apparatus. The gaseous mixture was subjected to a high voltage electrical discharge and then passed through a condenser to cool it down before going through a “trap” cooled in ice to collect any liquid products. Unchanged material was cycled through the apparatus repeatedly to maximise the yield."
The results were low yield and not even the right amino acids. Not to mention that an oxygen rich atmosphere would instantly reduce the while thing to goo.
Regardless, it is faith. One must believe it to avoid the alternative. It certainly would be easier to accept if, in our life rich world, we saw examples of life originating from non-life. But science tells us that is absurd.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It was certainly an experiment.
"He assembled a closed system into which he pumped a mixture of gases (methane, ammonia and hydrogen). There was a flask of boiling water in order to add water vapour to the mixture and the gases were circulated around the apparatus. The gaseous mixture was subjected to a high voltage electrical discharge and then passed through a condenser to cool it down before going through a “trap” cooled in ice to collect any liquid products. Unchanged material was cycled through the apparatus repeatedly to maximise the yield."
The results were low yield and not even the right amino acids. Not to mention that an oxygen rich atmosphere would instantly reduce the while thing to goo.
Regardless, it is faith. One must believe it to avoid the alternative. It certainly would be easier to accept if, in our life rich world, we saw examples of life originating from non-life. But science tells us that is absurd.

He is a troll. He's continuing to prop 'science' up as a standard while refusing to deal with the contradiction of his empiricist mindset. He doesn't want discussion. He wants a public place to flatulate and laugh.

 

[jvol1]

The origins of life is kind of a draw because it can be interpreted either way, as random or as inspired. It fails to be conclusive for the same reason that Aquinas couldn't ulitmately prove that his "First Cause" was the God of the Bible. I reject the creationist view because the Bible relies on allegory and metaphor to the point that it's difficult to determine what most of the stories, especially in Genesis, were actually about. It's kind of nonsense if taken literally, but that doesn't mean that their isn't important deeper (and useful) religious meaning in the texts.

Creation, as that guy at the end of "The Life of Pi" says, seems to come down to the question of "Which would you prefer?"

 

[Orange_Crush]

The origins of life is kind of a draw because it can be interpreted either way, as random or as inspired. It fails to be conclusive for the same reason that Aquinas couldn't ulitmately prove that his "First Cause" was the God of the Bible. I reject the creationist view because the Bible relies on allegory and metaphor to the point that it's difficult to determine what most of the stories, especially in Genesis, were actually about. It's kind of nonsense if taken literally, but that doesn't mean that their isn't important deeper (and useful) religious meaning in the texts.

Creation, as that guy at the end of "The Life of Pi" says, seems to come down to the question of "Which would you prefer?"

I think that most Christians would agree with you per the fact that we all rely on faith at some point to hold our worldview. It's the angry atheists that bristle at that point; not Christians. But the angry atheists want to throw out a straw man argument that Christians claim to prove their faith, then kick at that strawman. See SD's stupid memes.

These conversations would go a lot further if everyone would enter with at least this much realistic humility: "This is what I believe and why", as opposed to "You are an idiot and I want every opportunity to mock you."

 

[marcusluvsvols]

If biological life from non-life is a problem for one side, it's a problem for the other.

Both sides give vacuous explanations to the mystery.

Agreed. My point was that while I have no problem admitting that my belief system requires faith while SD and many who believe like him squirm at the notion that their beliefs require faith. It's absurd and dishonest.

"BUT I am a scientist! Only empirical evidence and the scientific method are truth! I don't need faith, eeeewwww."
.
It really does take a great deal of faith IMO to believe that everything came from nothing, and accidentally as well. No creator, no purpose, no direction. Pure dumb luck and chance. Nevermind silly things like the scientific method.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

I think that most Christians would agree with you per the fact that we all rely on faith at some point to hold our worldview. It's the angry atheists that bristle at that point; not Christians. But the angry atheists want to throw out a straw man argument that Christians claim to prove their faith, then kick at that strawman. See SD's stupid memes.

These conversations would go a lot further if everyone would enter with at least this much realistic humility: "This is what I believe and why", as opposed to "You are an idiot and I want every opportunity to mock you."

Lots of angry "Christians" out there, too. Intolerance is an end game that certain segments of both sides play. However, there seem to be more "Christians" that use religion as an excuse for their intolerance.

The BS bill in the Tn legislature to declare the Bible as Tennessee's state book is an example of something that everyone that is not Christian finds obnoxious about many that are Christian. Worship whomever, whatever and whenever you want, but stop trying to insert your beliefs into my life.

 

[volprof]

The BS bill in the Tn legislature to declare the Bible as Tennessee's state book is an example of something that everyone that is not Christian finds obnoxious about many that are Christian. Worship whomever, whatever and whenever you want, but stop trying to insert your beliefs into my life.

Nothing like a good, old fashioned pissing upon the Separation Clause to remind you what many of your Christian neighbors really think about you and the rest of the country.

On a tangentially related note, I'm impressed at how far this thread has come. What began as a random musing about hatred for Christians has become a months-old platform for debate on nearly every single theological topic imaginable.

Every now and then a thread comes along that defies your expectations. You think that this thread couldn't possibly last more than a week or two, but damned if it doesn't prove you wrong. This is that thread.

 

[PKT_VOL]

The origins of life is kind of a draw because it can be interpreted either way, as random or as inspired. It fails to be conclusive for the same reason that Aquinas couldn't ulitmately prove that his "First Cause" was the God of the Bible. I reject the creationist view because the Bible relies on allegory and metaphor to the point that it's difficult to determine what most of the stories, especially in Genesis, were actually about. It's kind of nonsense if taken literally, but that doesn't mean that their isn't important deeper (and useful) religious meaning in the texts.

Creation, as that guy at the end of "The Life of Pi" says, seems to come down to the question of "Which would you prefer?"

Great movie with a deep message. Too bad it is lost on too many people.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Agreed. My point was that while I have no problem admitting that my belief system requires faith while SD and many who believe like him squirm at the notion that their beliefs require faith. It's absurd and dishonest.

"BUT I am a scientist! Only empirical evidence and the scientific method are truth! I don't need faith, eeeewwww."
.
It really does take a great deal of faith IMO to believe that everything came from nothing, and accidentally as well. No creator, no purpose, no direction. Pure dumb luck and chance. Nevermind silly things like the scientific method.

Your problem is you are very confident in your beliefs but woefully ignorant in the things you dismiss.

You have claimed you "love science", but you just called the scientific method "silly". I shouldn't need to point out to you how contradictory that is.

Second, "science" has never been about finding the purpose and direction in your life. That's all on you. Whether you use a religion or not is all up to you, but please don't act like atheists can't have a purpose or direction.

Third, evolution is not "dumb luck and chance". I've said this before but you seriously need to study the subject more before you keep making such statements.

Finally, you keep acting like abiogenesis is some accepted fact. It's not, and no scientist will say it is. It's a hypothesis made with the best knowledge we have, but science will clearly tell you "We don't know", and they have no problem saying they don't know. Saying they "don't know" doesn't equal = you being right.

I've said this to you before and I'll say it again, if you were as dismissive and "skeptical" of your beliefs as you claim to be of science/evolution, there's no way you'd hold to them.