Christians Together : Conference on Christianity and Science

Feedback:

(page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9)

	A P Elsworthy (Guest)	21/08/2010 18:49
John at 13.39 re JC: what about mistaken or misreported? I prefer misreported myself. No one has to prove JC a fraud - the thing to do it look at the subject of religion widely and objectively then draw a conclusion. Atheism is not a religion; it is based upon drawing conclusions from facts, observations and consequent liklihoods. Andrea are you really saying that evolution does not fit in with scientific fact in anyway? This site is unreal - full of people that are probably intelligent when away from religious influence but crumbly cheese when under its strange spell.
	Andrea Mac	21/08/2010 20:06
A P says, "This site is unreal - full of people that are probably intelligent when away from religious influence but crumbly cheese when under its strange spell." Why does it always have to come down to personal insult when you meet an opposing view? I don't consider atheists to be unintelligent and would hope that I wouldn't resort to insulting them purely because I don't agree with their views. There are Christian scientists who are every bit as knowledgeable about what science actually tells us (and more importantly, what it doesn't). Would you consider them stupid too? I do not trash what atheists believe and accept these beliefs are sincerely held, as are mine, and I welcome any proper debate on why each side believes what they do, and that should include actual scientific facts (and I stress facts, not thoughts). It is not science I disbelieve, it is man's interpretation of parts of it. I have taken the time to read what a Christian scientist says and the reasons given why much of what is being put out as fact is simply not true from a scientific basis. As I am not a scientist, I have to accept the accuracy of these scientific facts but, clearly, both sides cannot be right. We have already been through all this debate before and, as another poster has already said, people who don't want to believe in God are not going to be persuaded, even if such scientific evidence was available (and you may well say the same thing for Christinas). Yes, faith is required because no human has a hope of fully understanding things way beyond our level of understanding. So, yes, I welcome this debate but I don't expect much to come from it as both sides already believe what they do and, I guess, don't want to be persuaded otherwise.
	A P Elsworthy (Guest)	22/08/2010 11:20
By saying, in effect, that the theory and fact of evolution is not in accord with the best science is no way to start a debate.In has the appearance of abuse, a trashing of enlightened and tested thought that even the Pope has conceded.Science is forever open to persuasion, reviewing its understanding - that is what it does - but evolution is more that merely compelling. If you want facts about evolution please research them for yourself; I ssay that because it is not a contentious theory - even if pressure from vested interests tries to convince you otherwise. There is no personal insult rather it is cutting to the quick of your view of evolution and finding it seriously wanting. As a matter of fact I do find Christian scientists difficult to behold. All that training and for what? Fortunately it appears that they are in the great minority, as I would expect them to be. Do not be easily impressed by authority; there is a man in a high academic position at Oxford that spouts the most illogical things about Islam and shows a plain silly world view. That conclusion is well supported by others in that they have seen identical weaknesses in his daft arguments.Authority is there to be questioned and that is what science does all the time.
	George Orr	22/08/2010 13:32
A P You start with athe n assumption that the theory of evolution is true. It is not true it is a theory. Evolution is a theory that proposes that life came about spontaneously, in a very basic form and from there, it has 'evolved', multiplied and and improved to the point today where we have the great biodiversity that we see. The above statement is chop full of assumptions but let me deal with just one. A basic understanding of information transfer, e.g. in the DNA of a cell, shows that the basic information for the formation of 'anything' requires that the information be there in the first place or that new information has to be introduced from an outside source. If the information is there in the first place, where did it come from? With the information that is already present in the DNA; a new cell of the exact same capability can be created or a less good cell that has mutated and switched off information can be created. It is not possible to create a better cell with no new additional information from an outside source. There can be apparent beneficial mutations that occur but these always occur with less information. In the natural world what is often called 'evolution' is in fact natural selection which takes the form of an apparent improvement in a kind. This always takes place within the 'kind' and is always only an apparently beneficial mutation. Defination of Evolution http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=evolutiondevelopment: a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage) ((biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms) (especially a more advanced or mature stage) This is a blind faith statement it is not science. Evolution has never been observed. Evolution goes against all the known and observed truths of information science. Evolution is a bankrupt theory.
	Andrea Mac	22/08/2010 16:27
I gather one of the basic laws of science is that "Order cannot come out of chaos". That law would appear to completely contradict what we are asked to believe in evolution. If you put all the correct ingredients in the same place and waited for them to come together in the right combination, you'd wait for eternity because it just isn't going to happen. Science tells us that and common sense tells us it. Since it cannot happen, how much more so when you don't even begin with the right ingredients in the first place? Then, try adding a random explosion (which can't be explained either) and you now have all the random ingredients now broken and even less likely to form something worthwhile. Then we are asked to believe that this happened millions and billions of times until we had a very complex, varied and incredibly ordered galaxy. And you wonder why we cannot accept it?
	DuncanTamsett (Guest)	23/08/2010 14:43
1. At a Science and Christianity conference in the 1980s Duane Gish confidently predicted that the gap in fossil record between Land Mammals and Marine Mammals would 'never' be bridged. (He supported his assertion with an image of a Cow bearing flippers - being rewarded with the laugh he was fishing for). In the early 90s the first fossil bridging the gap was found. This was done by knowing the approx. age of the rocks in which such a fossil would be found, then locating rocks having the appropriate and palaeo envoronment, and then searching. This is a good e.g. of the predictive power of Evolution working as a theory. (i.e. it is not 'just a theory' - what ever that means!) (In the late 90s another fossil bridging the gap was found and in the 00s approx another 10 distinct fossil intermediates between Marine and Land Mammals were found) 2. The subtitle of Darwin's famous book is much more interesting than the main title. Evolution was not new as an idea in 1859. Genetic mutation may produce random change, but Natural Selection (N.B. Selection is the 'opposite' of Random) means that the genetic information carried by surviving genes changes in a non-random way. i.e. Darwin's original cotribution was the Mechanism for Nat. Sel rather than Evol. itself. 3. Growth 'defies' the laws of thermomdynamics in precisely the same way that evolution does, and yet here we all are. i.e. Evol. does not defy Thermodynamics for reasons that it takes too long to attempt to explain here. 4. For those of you willing to look at something 'not' produced by the 'Answers in Genesis' outfit, you might benefit from reading 'In Search of Darwin's God' by Ken Miller (a real Scientist and a real Christian). In the last 3rd of the book he does not quite prove God through a consideration of Nature but he does i think do a good job of showing that Science has failed to dismiss God.
	A P Elsworthy (Guest)	24/08/2010 18:46
Science cannot use its tools to dismiss God because God is faith based rather than rational. As far as I am aware science is not even looking at the question of God because it has more pressing matters.
	Donald Boyd	30/08/2010 13:16
I wonder if any of the contributors to this forum attended this "conference". If so, do you have any comments to make?
	Duncan Tamsett (Guest)	31/08/2010 10:46
A Science and Christianity meeting wld have interested me in principle. But this looked like a cover for an attempt to promote 6 Day Creationism as Science based. Was i wrong to think so? One of the talks shd have been subtitled '... Can Scientists Believe in a Young Earth?'. That may have made it more interesting to me. There did not appear to be anything challenging the Young Earth view on offer. Was i wrong to think so? Is there a potted 'proceedings' of the meeting available i wonder?
	Duncan Tamsett (Guest)	31/08/2010 17:01
Alec, I have looked at the web site you mentioned and I agree that the indications are that I have probably misjudged MM. Duncan. Any proceedings available to those that did not attend?

(page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9)

Conference on Christianity and Science

The apparent conflict between Science and Christianity is the subject to be addressed at a day conference in Inverness which will bring together three expert speakers on the theme.

Conference on Christianity & Science

Inverness East Church Hall,

Margaret Street, Inverness IV1 1LU

Saturday, 28 August, 2010