The Scientists' View
-
Let me begin by restate that EH was started not to discuss on theology. It was started with the intention to be gathering place for fellow Christians in sgForums. Through time, most who come here have chosen to debate on theological issues.Originally posted by pretzel:Wow, so I guess we can't talk about anything now, can we? Since we are not experts in, say, theology. Based on your reasoning, this whole forum should be closed down because there is basically no topic where we are experts in. Unless, of course, you have a degree or doctorate in theology or something relatable. Everything that you have said can be applied to almost any topic. So, why aren't you closing the other topics down?
We will try to answer questions regarding Christianity to our best ability, but some may not be representative of all the Christians. As CE mentioned, we will only reply with our own inclination. If one starts a topic making a statement and a challenge, it invites defensive replies which will lead to unpleaseant exchanges. We do not wish this to happen.
For one, I do not disagree with evolution. Nor do I embrace it fully because it covers a wide area and everything about it is not fully validated. It does give some reasons to how the world come to this stage, but it has not given all the answers. Even if evolution is true to a point, it is not really a proof against Christianity.
From my Chrisitan view, I believe if one takes the effort, science can be used to experience and understand God's creative creation. And that's all I can tell you. -
How come EH is different from Catholic, Buddhist and Brey's forum?Originally posted by sillyme:Let me begin by restate that EH was started not to discuss on theology. It was started with the intention to be gathering place for fellow Christians in sgForums. Through time, most who come here have chosen to debate on theological issues.
At least the mods there got educate people on their faith.
-
I think we want to take a more laidback approach.... Obviously there are some ill-feelings on Christians over-preaching.... therefore, perhaps sillyme doesn't want to do that. I for sure DON'T WANT TO PREACH.Originally posted by Icemoon:How come EH is different from Catholic, Buddhist and Brey's forum?
At least the mods there got educate people on their faith.
Educating other peeps on our faith? I guess there are lots of folks out there doing it already.
Got questions? ask politely, will be answered (within our own limited understanding). -
How about starting a thread (and making it sticky) .. 10 misconceptions about the Christian faith?Originally posted by Chin Eng:I think we want to take a more laidback approach.... Obviously there are some ill-feelings on Christians over-preaching.... therefore, perhaps sillyme doesn't want to do that. I for sure DON'T WANT TO PREACH.
Educating other peeps on our faith? I guess there are lots of folks out there doing it already.
Got questions? ask politely, will be answered (within our own limited understanding). -
what? FAQ on Christianity....? I don't think I can do that. Anyway I think it will be counter-productivity, and end up becoming a flame-bait.Originally posted by Icemoon:How about starting a thread (and making it sticky) .. 10 misconceptions about the Christian faith? -
Ya, so many people here wiser than me Silly me cannot do it alone.
sillyme is no good with words, me prefer to speak with action -
Originally posted by sillyme:me prefer to speak with action
what! action? beat people up? so violent..... -
Icey,Originally posted by Icemoon:How about starting a thread (and making it sticky) .. 10 misconceptions about the Christian faith?
so many people with so many different misconceptions, and so many different people with so many different answers,
this type of sticky not practical lah.
hard to maintain, not able to please everyone, and also very hard to come out with 10 misconceptions (different people have their own top 10 questions/misconceptions and expected answers) -
Haiz .. the result of 36000 Protestant denominations.Originally posted by vince69:Icey,
so many people with so many different misconceptions, and so many different people with so many different answers,
this type of sticky not practical lah.
hard to maintain, not able to please everyone, and also very hard to come out with 10 misconceptions (different people have their own top 10 questions/misconceptions and expected answers)
-
10misconceptions per denominations = 360,000 misconceptionsOriginally posted by Icemoon:Haiz .. the result of 36000 Protestant denominations. 
-
Originally posted by vince69:10misconceptions per denominations = 360,000 misconceptions
-
if and only if these 10 misconceptions each are mutually exclusiveOriginally posted by vince69:10misconceptions per denominations = 360,000 misconceptions
now now, lets go draw up a Venn diagram -
You don't see me posting my objection on kaister's thread, do you?Originally posted by Icemoon:well .. when Kaister was here .. there was some learning .. depending on how you see it.
like i've said .. the onus is on the TS to maintain a good discussion.
if he comes here with the intention to flame .. then bye bye .. lock topic.
Like i've said. Whatever posted is only for this thread.
It is clear that Threadstarter has already got his stand and not here to learn.
Anyway. Sillyme and unker CE have already stated their views very clearly. There is nothing for me to argue or 'discuss'. -
You know what, I thought about this question when I was writing my reply last night.
IÂ’m not sure why you keep referring to this topic as undebatable. Is it because you already have a clear stand on the issue of evolution that it cannot be known as a fact? Previous attempts were mostly made by people who only gave their opinions. You see, subjective arguments without any support will mostly end that way.
I think at the end of the day, Eternal Hope does not exist to attempt to debate the undebatables. In the past, such attempts are always futile and will again inevitably end up screaming at each other. So no point.I think EH exist as a platform for people who are seeking Christian answer - by seeking, I am saying seeking amicably. I know who are the non-Christians who are at least friendly towards us. These folk will agree to disagree. In the case as this thread, since you have already drew the conclusion that evolution is CORRECT and the Christian view of creationism is wrong, then therefore there is nothing to discuss. May I quote from your opening line: "I believe you do not want anybody to come to a satisfactory conclusion, since most of the evidence point to evolution being a fact."
I have never said that creationism is wrong. I merely said that most scientists agree on evolution being a fact and I posted the links to support this view. Of course, after reading up on evolution, I have taken the stand that evolution is a fact. Does it mean that only people who have not taken sides can discuss a topic? If so, I guess all christians should not be allowed to discuss anything, isnÂ’t it?
The SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION, for you, in this case, is that evolution is a fact. Therefore, since the conclusion is already presented, there is really nothing to say anymore.
So, gracefully, I feel that I want to agree to disagree and move on.
The satisfactory conclusion for me is one that is drawn with the right amount of evidence. If you can present your side of the case so strongly with various references that point to evolution not being a fact and that the scientific community is, on a whole, against the idea of evolution, then that to me is a satisfactory conclusion.If someone, say, wish to know about churches or Christian life, or Christian perspective, sure we can discuss and give our opinions. While opinions share are based on our experiences and our understand, nonetheless, they are relatively valid to one seeking these opinions. We have, in the past, many of such people, and such people know that when opinions differ, we shake hands and move on.
I have no problems with your opinions on this.No need to get so upset. Yes, there are lots of links in wiki, unfortunately the realisation is that the links are of course based on the inclination of that particular wiki writer. To be totally objective, you should also posts the links to creationism. Unfortunately, I fear that your goal is just to present the side that you believe in. In order to spare readers the need to search: here is the wiki link to creationism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism which also contains tons of links to other pro-creationism websites.
You are only half right. Most of the links are based on the inclination of the writer but they are still links to sites that are considered objective in these matters. DoesnÂ’t that still make the linked site objective? Let me give an example. The writer referenced a link to the InterAcademy Panel, where the science associations of 67 countries signed a statement regarding their stand on the issue of evolution. Did this suddenly cause an erosion of the websiteÂ’s objectivity? Your statements here certainly give the feeling that whatever the writer referenced, are totally unobjective.
Like I have said, I havenÂ’t even gotten to why creationism is right or wrong and such. My statements and links only touched on why evolution should be considered a fact. IÂ’m not sure why creationism should be given any time of our day, but if you can find links to the scientific community saying good things about creationism, I would be happy to give it a read. But I must stress that it should come from the general scientific community and not the christian scientific community.Even if something is accepted by most scientists it doesn't mean it is correct, take the former-planet Pluto for example. All kids will now have to relearn that there are really only 8 planets in the solar system ... and how many years has it been in the textbooks that Pluto is a planet?
Firstly, there are exceptions to everything. When have we used exceptions as the basis of our arguments?
If you really need to know, I am NOT one of those who accept the NEW EARTH CREATION THEORY. So please don't get all up in arms and start accusing people of not accepting what you think is right.
Secondly, the problem here is not so much whether a fact can be changed, but it's whether people take evolution as a fact. The beauty of science is that it is constantly advancing. Today, we may consider something to be a fact. But tomorrow, new discoveries may be found that invalidates it. Just like your father. You may know him as your dad and may call him so. But tomorrow, you may find out that he is your actually your brother. (Something similar happened to Jack Nicholson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_nicholson#Biography_and_personal_life) But until that happens, you still consider him as your father to be a fact, donÂ’t you?At the end of the day, all of us merely form opinions based on what we read and understand. Even scientist are not truly sure. They are only proposing concepts and theories, and scenarios are extrapolated.
IÂ’m not sure if this statement harms or aids your cause. The scientists try their best to investigate natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation and experimentation. If you are putting down scientists in general, how much less do you view those christian scientists who endorse creationism based on insufficient evidence?I am not against the discussion of the origins of earth, I am against the tone that you are right and everyone else is wrong. When that happens, it ceases to being a discussion, it will become a mud-slinging contest, which nobody wins.
If the tone of my answers is the problem, then I can change it. No big deal. But I must question why this thread, which so obviously is a flame bait, is allowed to flourish while my thread was closed in a day: http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=212066
I think there's some bias here but I also understand that you guys are the moderaters and I am not. -
I would like an answer to the question in my very first post:
Please tell me, based on the references I have posted below, what is the scientific community's stand on evolution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10(National Science Teachers' Association)
http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf (Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries)
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf (American Association for the Advancement of Science)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misunderstandings_about_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy
Do you know what opinions without proper references look like?:
From: http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=230222Originally posted by breytonhartge:evolution has still to be proven to be scientific fact...
From: http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=212066Originally posted by davidche:to me, evolution is more like a reasoning than a theory.
no evidences at all.
And i mean at all!!!!!! -
your other points... I don't really want to answer already. I have said enough already.Originally posted by pretzel:If the tone of my answers is the problem, then I can change it. No big deal. But I must question why this thread, which so obviously is a flame bait, is allowed to flourish while my thread was closed in a day: http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=212066
I think there's some bias here but I also understand that you guys are the moderaters and I am not.
This one, I want to:
Why isn't it closed?
1. I was not a mod then, so I cannot close it, the last post was in October. But the main reason is:
2. This is a Christian forum. If say, someone declares that Jesus is Lord and saviour and I did not close it, it is perfectly normal to, say, someone else posting Jesus is a fraud.... and I look it up go figure.... am I bias here? Entirely up to you.
3. Sure, we are mods and you are not ... knock yourself out... start your own forum. There apparently already is one by the atheist... you don't see me going in there and write what I believe do you? Maybe you should start one for the scientific community. Seriously, I am not even trying to be sarcastic, I mean it from the bottom of my heart.
I take it that you are peeved because your first thread was closed.... I kept this one open, so I guess we are even.
And BTW, again I remind you, this is a Christian forum, like it or not. If the posts here are bias towards Christianity, you think it is unfair. If you don't like what you read, too bad.
I want to stress: we do not oppose questions opposing Christianity - just don't start with "are you guys delusional or something?". The other non-Christians also understand this, can you!? -
The case of Pluto is different.Originally posted by Chin Eng:Even if something is accepted by most scientists it doesn't mean it is correct, take the former-planet Pluto for example. All kids will now have to relearn that there are really only 8 planets in the solar system ... and how many years has it been in the textbooks that Pluto is a planet?
Scientists have long noted the anomaly of Pluto since it was discovered in the 1930. In fact, before Pluto was plutoed, it was not treated as a planet in the conventional sense, more like an asteroid, a trans-Neptunian object, a runaway from the Kuiper Belt.
So the case of Pluto was a problem of labelling.
Which is why in teaching Pluto to the kids, it is good to teach them the anomaly also. Labels do not tell the whole story.
Likewise for evolution. A good textbook will tell you the weaknesses in Darwin's original theory of evolution and the progress made in the 1 1/2 century. -
YOU STARTED THIS THREAD!Originally posted by pretzel:If the tone of my answers is the problem, then I can change it. No big deal. But I must question why this thread, which so obviously is a flame bait, is allowed to flourish while my thread was closed in a day: http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=212066
I think there's some bias here but I also understand that you guys are the moderaters and I am not.
edit: pretzel, ignore this reply. -
Just to clarify. The thread referenced as a flame bait. I was MIA during that time and CE was not the moderator at that time. I only reappeared recently.
So some parts of evolution can be established. Now what? -
Originally posted by pretzel:Is it because you already have a clear stand on the issue of evolution that it cannot be known as a fact? this is quite funny... the presumption, I mean....
I happen to be one of the few Christians that support evolution (up to a point).
Your link: http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Therefore it can be safely concluded that truth in science is never final. I think this is a fair statement. -
I think he's refering to the thread entitled "Creationism is the truth" by assfer.Originally posted by Icemoon:YOU STARTED THIS THREAD! -
This one quite high level lah.... when I was a kid, we were all taught that the Solar System has NINE planets. Popular bookstores' posters for children also have NINE planets... no one talked about anomaly in the primary and secondary science books lah.Originally posted by Icemoon:The case of Pluto is different.
Scientists have long noted the anomaly of Pluto since it was discovered in the 1930. In fact, before Pluto was plutoed, it was not treated as a planet in the conventional sense, more like an asteroid, a trans-Neptunian object, a runaway from the Kuiper Belt.
So the case of Pluto was a problem of labelling.
Which is why in teaching Pluto to the kids, it is good to teach them the anomaly also. Labels do not tell the whole story.
Likewise for evolution. A good textbook will tell you the weaknesses in Darwin's original theory of evolution and the progress made in the 1 1/2 century. -
Haha .. which means good scientific literacy is important.Originally posted by Chin Eng:This one quite high level lah.... when I was a kid, we were all taught that the Solar System has NINE planets. Popular bookstores' posters for children also have NINE planets... no one talked about anomaly in the primary and secondary science books lah.
Also questioning (inquisitive mind) is important.
If I tell you Pluto is smaller than our moon, won't you say "wtf .. how can our moon be bigger than a planet?" -
Oh .. I missed out the latter part of the sentence.Originally posted by Chin Eng:I think he's refering to the thread entitled "Creationism is the truth" by assfer.
I think his english either wrong or not very accurate. Normally you will say "the following thread" instead of "this thread" right? Imagine if your sentence is 10 lines and only at the 10th then you show the link.
"This" implies a reference to something. Ideally the reference should already exist. -
...yeah, but which starry eyed 10 year old kid is going to debate with his teacher when the teacher holding the science textbook says - "there are NINE planets in the solar system"... this child will grow up and continue to assume that there are NINE planets... until one day read in Straits Time that Pluto's status is re-evaluated and eventually downgraded...Originally posted by Icemoon:Haha .. which means good scientific literacy is important.
Also questioning (inquisitive mind) is important.
If I tell you Pluto is smaller than our moon, won't you say "wtf .. how can our moon be bigger than a planet?"
my 11 yr old just asked me how is the atomic bomb created... I stared and say, I dunno! check wikipedia lah. Not sure if he's planning something... gotta watch out...