Kosh

Straight A's on which topics?

Tricia

thanks for answering my question, wildernesse. I look foward to hearing your input as sorta of a inbetween of me and "them"(no offense intended). I take it then you are a theistic evolutionist then?

As for your other questions, I am a sophomore in high school now, not in college. The subjects I took this year were geography, Bible, Spanish 1, English, biology, journalism, and algebra 2.

~Tricia

lo siento, I will get to more questions, but I'm doing some painting around the house and my brother is graduating tomorrow so I have my hands full until Monday.

[ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: Tricia ]</p>

wildernesse

Tricia,

I hope you have a nice weekend and a nice beginning to your summer! Congrats on an A in algebra 2—I don’t think I ever made an A in math after middle school—sad but true!

I guess for the time being I will let you call me a “theistic evolutionist” although I have semantics problems with both of those words! Anyway, I look forward to putting my two bits into the conversation as well.

Also: in Bible class, do you talk about evolution versus creation as well as in biology? Just wondering!!

--tiba

Vinnie

Tricia, I didn't know you posted so regularly here. Cool

Tricia

heh heh.... Actually no. That's why I am here, I don't learn really anything about it at school.
I have done my part to get some text to read over the summer(like ripping out the evolution section in a biology book ). I don't know why, but this area really interests me. I hope to learn a lot more about evolution so I can defend my faith better. I know some people think I'm too far gone to be 'helped', and they are right. I just want to learn the other side of the story.

And Vinnie, I've got one thing to say to you: HA! You may beat me in post count at the ILJ boards, but I am whipping you here.

~Tricia

hezekiah jones

So, what have you learned here?

How do you expect biology and astronomy to help you in defending your faith?

What about all those people that devoted considerable time to answer your questions? Was it worth it? For them? For you?

So ... what have you learned after 224 posts in this thread alone?

Tricia

So, what have you learned here?

Different theories about the origin of life, that not all evolutionists believe in the big bang, and TONS more. Trust me.

How do you expect biology and astronomy to help you in defending your faith?

If this means what I think it does, . If not, I can defend my faith on scientific means alone without the use of the Bible. I'm not to that point yet, but....

What about all those people that devoted considerable time to answer your questions? Was it worth it? For them? For you?

It was worth it for me, I hope they feel the same way. But if they answered my questions in hopes of a new convert, or rather deconvert, they were misled.


... what have you learned after 224 posts in this thread alone?

More than you think if you have to ask.

Thank you all who have answered my questions faithfully. I am in debt to you for spending your time and effort educating me.

~Tricia

[ May 26, 2002: Message edited by: Tricia ]</p>

KeithHarwood

Couple of little points here. Don't use the term `evolutionist' in any context outside the Evo/Cre debate. If they know what you mean you will only be laughed at. If you mean `scientist', use that word.

Also, the big bang has nothing to do with evolution. That is one of the cheap creationist debating tricks.

More, scientists generally don't believe things in the same sense that you believe in, say, Christianity. It is an entirely different mental discipline. In this forum you would be better to use the word accept. (If we can teach you that discipline, I, for one, will consider my time here well spent.) The defining element of that discipline is a willingness to abandon ideas in the face of evidence, even, at times, when there is no idea that can replace it. I'm not saying you should apply this discipline to your religious beliefs (although many around here do), but I am saying you should apply it to your beliefs about the natural world around you.

Further, the big bang is accepted by the vast majority of scientists and the evidence supporting it is very great. However, it is nowhere near as well supported as evolution. It is also much younger than evolution and, unlike evolution, recently (i.e. in the last fifty years) had a viable competing theory. That was called the steady-state theory which proposed that the universe had existed in more or less its present state through all eternity, that it was expanding (as had been observed) but remained at more or less its present density because of the continuous creation of matter. It was, in fact, the proponents of the steady-state theory who coined the term `big bang' as a disparaging reference to what had been refered to as the Cosmic Egg, or the primordial atom. But as the evidence came in more and more predictions of the big bang were satisfied by observations and none of the predictions of the steady-state were the latter theory was pretty well abandonded. Occasionally someone will fiddle with it to see if it can be brought back, but most efforts fail, in spite of the fact that a lot of scientists would like to see them succeed.

And that illustrates the discipline I was talking about. We go where the evidence leads, regardless of our personal preferences.

I'm puzzled here. How can you defend your faith without the Bible? The Bible defines your faith. Or are you going to convert to some other religion? I really don't understand what you are trying to say.

Oolon Colluphid

Sorry Tricia, you’ve lost me. Surely the bible is the fount of just about all the information your faith uses, isn’t it?

Science cannot support your faith, because that’s not what it’s about. Some, like the late SJ Gould, think that the two -- science and religion -- are ‘non-overlapping magisteria’: ways of looking at the world that are possibly complementary, but still utterly separate, each good in its own area; others like Richard Dawkins argue that science is the only way of answering questions about the world, and that there’s nothing religion can tell us that isn’t banal. Either way, nobody is arguing any more that scientific findings support religion in any way.

Science doesn’t deny gods; it’s just that it doesn’t use them in its explanations. Whenever they’ve previously been used, they have been later shown to be unnecessary. Hence allowing gods in at all is merely covering holes in our present understanding: so-called god-of-the-gaps hypotheses. Such gods have a habit of evaporating.

What’s more, replacing the unknown with the unknowable (the supernatural, by definition) makes for a lousy explanation. If we say we cannot possibly know about a particular bit, and allow in an unverifiable element, we may as well give up and take the easy option: let gods ‘explain’ everything.

Science does however reveal many things that are rather difficult for a literal-Genesis-type creator hypothesis to explain: see for instance the posts in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000801" target="_blank">this thread</a>, and threads passim. If you want to unite science with your faith, the very most you can have is your god guiding evolution. Sorry Tricia, but you need to realise: everything beyond that -- the literal interpretation of Genesis that insists on immutable ‘kinds’, a 6000 year old earth, god as a designer, etc -- all of that is the bare minimum of you’ll have to jettison if you want to have science as part of your world-view. Because all that is utterly refuted by science’s findings, as we can show you.

Cheers, Oolon

wildernesse

Tricia,

I too, am interested in how you can prove your faith by scientific means. What kinds of information will you need to do this? I know that you said you are not at the point to really discuss this yet, but what are your plans to get you to this point?

I, personally, don’t believe you can prove faith by any means other than living your life in accordance with the dictates of that faith. By biblical definition, faith is “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (NIV, Heb. 11:1). And Webster defines faith in several different ways: (<a href="http://www.m-w.com" target="_blank">Webster's</a>)

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs.

Of these definitions, the 2b definition is something to think about when trying to prove any kind of faith. And I believe that the Bible agrees with this, in that we know that the hope God gives us and His existence are real—even though we never see or even realize fully the idea of “God”. Does this make faith a bad thing? I don’t think so—but it is a different thing from reason. Does this make reason a bad thing? Plainly put, no—but it is a different thing from faith.

Interestingly enough, Hebrews 11:3 says “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” If faith is non-provable, why do so many Christians/theists keep trying to prove that God created?

We accept science’s discoveries in medicine and agriculture with no qualms--why not in biology, physics, and chemistry?

Just some food for thought. I look forward to reading what your comments are on my post!

--tiba

P.S. I think Oolon’s post is very good, and requires some mulling over.

[ May 27, 2002: Message edited by: wildernesse ]

[ May 27, 2002: Message edited by: wildernesse ]</p>