Christianity, Knowledge and Science

Ok, to answer your questions as best I can at this time.
(And this is all from me. I am not going to go out and get quotes from dictionaries and such.) Well, first off, there is a lot of debate about this, so I can only answer this from what I have gathered by the evidence. I believe that Jesus is a fact. That he did exsist. Now, I think the belief comes into play around whether or not he was God, or the Son of God, or many other things that are suggested. Including many things he said or did. Yes, there are those that say that there is no evidence he ever exsisted. There are those that say there is plenty showing he did. So, to some this is a fact, to others it is a belief. Belief. Even if I believe it is a fact, it still comes down to being a belief. Through study of the evidence. When the evidence supports something being fact, it is stated as such. (Now, I know many of you are going to want to jump in and say; "Then Evolution is a fact." Not so. many believe the evidence shows evolution as a whole to be a fact. There is a difference. (Which is why we don't have multiple groups arguing about gravity.) I think this can be rather ambiguous, as I feel there are a few variations. Some would describe belief as: 'Holding an opinion about something that has no basis in fact or reality.' Although I agree that this can be the case at times, I do not think it is always the case. Others would describe belief as; 'Holding an opinion about something after looking at all the evidence and coming to a conclusion.' After all, the evidence does not always lead to a simple, consise, fact. If I have never sit in a specific chair, and I walk up to it, and then sit down...I had a belief that the chair would hold my weight. This belief became fact. Now, does that mean that fact will always hold true? No. The next time I sit in the chair, it could collapse. (Many of us have had this happen.) Although, after 50 times of sitting in that specific chair without it collapsing, I am going to have an extremely strong belief that it will hold me up. Until I again sit in that chair, I can not guarantee that 'It will hold me this time' is a fact.There, that is what I have at this time. Again, I think most of your questions can honestly have many different answers, or at least many different interpretations.

Unfortunately, no it would not. You, like many here, would just say something along the lines of: "Those are not REAL scientists." Or come up with some other lame excuse as to why you will not accept the fact that honest scientists have differing opinions from you. You have already made it very clear that you believe anyone who has a different opinion is either deluded, lying, or stupid. So, any list I provided would just be lumped into that category. And God forbid if I had the audacity to include people from The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Research or Answers in Genesis (Even though there are many in those organizations who are in fields of study related to the discussion, and who have degrees from very prestigious institutions.)And, just for argument sake, here is one list. Although, again, you are not going to like the source, tough. There are plenty of real scientists on them. I know I am going to get attacked ruthlessly for putting this in here. I do not really care. You can argue and say whatever you like, there are REAL scientists on these list. Deal with it. You may not like what they stand for, you may not agree with what they have found from the evidence, TOO BAD. None of that changes the fact that they are real, not illusion.ICR Research | The Institute for Creation Research
ICR Research | The Institute for Creation Research
ICR Research | The Institute for Creation ResearchHave people associated with those organizations made claims, or statements, or quotes that were later found to be untrue? Yes. That was wrong. (Although I do not agree that every instance was intentional. Some may have been, I do not know.) Unfortunately, you have no problem pointing that out, and yet you will not point out the fact that the main organizations took steps after those incidents to stop that sort of thing from happening, or at least reprimand those that did it. None of them support lying, whether you believe it or not.And please don't try to honestly argue that there are only those on one side that would use false information to further a purpose. There are those on both sides. Sad, but true. And no I am not going to provide proof. It's out there and widely known, find it yourself. I am not doing all the work here. I am not worried about the innocent bystander at this time. I just don't see the point in putting any effort into providing a list that you will obviously outright say is either a made up item, or that all those on it are frauds.I give your scientists the benefit of the doubt most of the time. Those I have checked up on have proven to be who they say they are. I am sure there are a handful that are not. There are liars and cheaters in all areas of industry, why should science be any different. My point is, I can agree that your side has honest scientist that have looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion they came to. I have a hard time understanding why you can not have the same understanding. Unless it is that you know deep down the legs you stand on are much weaker then you profess? Your point is read, and deemed wrong. Again this is just a case of you using your arrogant attitude and name calling. You basically said; 'If you disagree with me, you are obviously ignorant." How pathetic. I am not even sure this is true, but I will say it anyway. You have looked at all the evidence. You have come to a conclusion. Fine, grats, bully for you. Others have looked at the same evidence, and come to DIFFERENT conclusions. You don't have to like it. You, unlike most people, can't even admit it. But, whether you admit it or not, it is true. Your last statement is just patently false. It is a blanket statement that can not even remotely be proven true. Even if I did not already know it to be false. That would be like me saying; "All people, who honestly try Taco Bell, do not deny the fact that Taco Bell is the best food in the world." Not a provable statement, at all. It is also arrogant to the extreme. Basically again saying; "If you don't agree with me, you are either dishonest, or stupid, or just plain lying."As per the topic: I would agree that Christianity, or ANY religion, CAN, and does at times, hinder progress, or promote ingnorance. That does not mean it should, or does as a whole. Religion has also many times promoted the killing of ghastly numbers of people. That does not meant the religion itself is bad (although it could be, that is for another debate). It means that the people practicing that religion at the time made choices, based on what they thought to be truth, or possibly just because they wanted to. I do not think you can honestly make a statement like the OP is making and have it be valid. Religion does not, 100% of the time, promote ignorance. Some people practicing said religions often do. There is a difference.Edited by bujitsu, : typo...

My first answer to your question: Yes! Truth is a relative concept, AND an absolute reality.To answer this, let me quote something else you wrote: I think that in a round about way, that statement answers your question. I think truth is a relative concept, according to what you are talking about. I may hold something as 100% truth internally. But, I agree, that is relative when I have to prove that truth to others. I think there are a much smaller number of real 'truths' out there then we want to admit.To quote a certain TV show: "The truth is out there." Truth is truth. It is 100% fact. Whether we know it, is open to interpretation. Maybe it is better said: Truth is absolute reality. Our understanding of said truth is relative. I can agree with that. Which is why there are not multiple groups arguing about gravity. Although, in all honesty even that could be taken to a higher level. Gravity is fact. What we UNDERSTAND about gravity, and the theories we have about it, are belief.I know someone is going to argue about that. My point is, we have discovered certain 'facts' about gravity and the way it works. Years from now, it may come about that our understanding was...not complete. But, most (probably all) scientists of today that have studied the evidence, agree with the majority finding. We all seem to agree that the evidence points in one direction, at least. Which is why we can on a base level make the statement: The law of gravity is a fact. (Even though it could one day be proven to be in error...in theory.) One of the most honest, and truthful things I have read on these boards. I 100% agree. Evolution, and its surrounding theories, are a best guess from the evidence provided. (In some peoples view.) I have no problem with that. I have no problem with someone saying that, at this time, from all the evidence, we believe that evolution is the most obvious way this has all come about. (Even though there are those that disagree.) What I do have a problem with is when people say; "Evolution is a fact." Nope, not according to our understanding of facts. It is an accepted theory of how things happened.It's actually rather ironic. I have never in any of my posts tried to prove that evolution is false. I honestly don't care. Could it be true? Sure. Could it be false? Sure. All I have basically said is that there are honest, real scientists that do not agree with the findings from the evidence. Sad that everyone jumped so harshly on that. My belief in God, my assurance of salvation, nothing I truly and deeply believe in is going to be adversly effected, whether or not evolution is true. So, it is honestly not from a deep spiritual or religious area that I make any of my arguments.Oh, and one more thing.Phat, thanks for your responses. More importantly, thank you, sincerely, for the attitude of those responses. You are one of the few that has responded that I did not feel was trying to bully, or belittle me, or bash me into submission. Thank you.

And this is why I am done with this line of questioning.You may not have said that we are all deluded, lying, or stupid as directly as others, but you have made your feelings clear none the less.Nothing I produce, nor anyone I show, will satisfy you. You will come up with a false accusation about them not really being scientists, or something of the like. There are studies, but the people who do them are not on YOUR list, so they must be false.I can give reason, or what you might call excuses, as to why certain scientist on one side or the other refuse to publish in other journals. Honestly, just look around here, the opposing view is mocked, even though there are those that support it with science. I guarantee, if I found a paper that 100% supported and proved the scientific fact that evolution is a lie. (I am not accusing it, I am making a point.) Most of you would not read it, and chalk it up to falsehood. Proving my point.You have not read 100% of the research out there that supports evolution, period. So don't get all high and mighty.You are again, wrong. Plenty of work done by members on ICR and others have their information available for review. Most from your side won't review it, because it comes from 'Those people who are non-scientists.' Plenty has been done in a serious effort, you just won't give it credence. Nothing I can say or show is going to change your closed mind. You are doing the same thing most evolutionists accuse creationists of...not having an open mind.Who says these groups are all charlatnas? You? So what. No offense, but, who the heck are you? Why should I believe you?I provided a list of SCIENTISTS. You just refuse to look at it because they are connected to an organization you do not like. Tough cookies. It's there, check it or not, I do not care. I did my part. You can't change the rules later in the game and say; "No, you have to provide a list from a source that I give you." No list I would come up with would satisfy you, because any list I would provide would have scientists on it that either believed in creation, or did not side with evolution. Because of that, they would be labelled charlatans. I can not speak for everyone in these organizations, just as you can not speak for everyone on your side of this whole debate. I can say this, the majority of them are out to show what they honestly, through scientific study AND belief, believe to be true. I have absolutely NO problem with that. You obviously do. On that note, I am working on an opening for a new topic. The basics of which we have already discussed. "Faith: Is it a part science?" I will prove that it is.On another note, you (and most I have heard like you) try to always come across like those who believe and support evolution are an overwhelming majority. Sorry, the statistics do not support that assumption. Search these boards alone and you can find the stats. You accuse me of repeating myself, and yet you do the same. There are plenty that have looked at the evidence, and come to different SCIENTIFIC conclusions. You may not like it. You may not support it. But denying it does not make it go away.This is just utterly prepostorous. If someone tells me they have done some study, and they have come up with a theory that they honestly believe proves how gravity works. They then tell me that this theory basically states; 'Gravity works because there is a hard-boiled egg in Cleveland." I can look at the evidence and show that I read the evidence differently. I do NOT have to come up with a different reason for why gravity works. I have heard so many evolutionists use that as an excuse. So what if we have not come up with an opposing theory. (And I am not saying someone has not.) That is not the point. Many just feel after observing the evidence that evolution on the macro scale is not supported. We do not need to come up with an opposing theory for that statement to be valid.I am done with this discussion unless something honestly worth my time comes up. Battling over semantics is pointless. We are not going to get anywhere on this particular argument. I have given reasons as to why. No one can back up any point, if those on the other side of the argument consistently say that any person not agreeing with them is ignorant. Which you HAVE said, in one way or the other. So, this discussion is fruitless.

And you are proving me correct. I provided a list, you ignored it. You are right, you are not an astronaut. That is about all we can agree on. The rest of your post is pointless to respond to, because no matter what I say, you will off-handedly reject it. You won't take my word, yet I am supposed to take yours. You say everything ICR, or anyone like them has done has been viewed and rejected. Again, so I am to take your word on this. Nope, sorry, no can do. Your turn to provide facts. I answered the questions you originally posted for me, I am not going to keep running around the same bush.Sorry, I did provide evidence, you just refused to look at it because it is associated with an organization you think is inept. You are entitled to your opinion. Now you know how many feel about evolutionists. Some think you are inept, so anything you say is viewed accordingly. (I am not saying that is the case, I am just using your view in reverse).Sorry, again you are wrong. I do not need to come up with an alternate theory if I believe the evidence does not support the current one. "A Hard-boiled egg in Cleveland" is not responsible for gravity. I looked at the evidence, and the evidence does not prove that to be true. I do NOT need to come up with a different theory about gravity. All I had to do was show why I believed the current theory wrong. Which has been done. But of course, you don't buy that either. Because obviously no one could disagree with your findings.