The rise of secularism

I wasn’t quoting scripture to show it is true. I quoted scripture to show why you reject the Christian God.

That is picking at a very small nit. I take it you are now willing to read the Quran with an open mind?

The Quran actually supports the Bible. The Quran acknowledges the Torah, or the first five books of the Bible. Muslims also recognize that David was the primary writer of the Psalms. And believe it or not, Muslims recognize Jesus as a prophet. I actually have a Quran in my library and often pull it down to read for myself what is written. Now I will admit I read it from the framework of accepting the Bible as truth, so there is some bias there. You have often suggested Islam is a more logical religion than Christianity. That statement leads me to believe you have never actually studied either the Quran or the Bible. Pulling a few verses from Google does not constitute “study”.

I was once told by an Imam that muslims use science to understand how their god made thinks happen. I was once told by a Christian that science's only aim is to destroy Christianity. No need for google when experts give you their view.

I can’t speak on the accuracy of what the Imam told you. But if that’s true, Muslims have no solid foundation to base their faith on since science is always changing.

As a Christian I can tell you that what this other Christian told you is false. I am neither afraid of science nor do I hate science. In fact, I appreciate science. I’m thankful for the advancements in medicine and technology. However, even you must agree that not all science is good science. There are fakes and phonies in the scientific world. So I take science with a grain of salt. But I do not see science as a tool to destroy Christianity.

To those who treat truth as absolute, the notion of provisional truths must be hard to grasp.   To further compound the situation, when a body of knowledge currently explains everything we know on a topic it gets labelled "The Theory of" suggesting it is all merely hypothesis to those outside of the scientific community.

I did try google on this topic and unearthed this article    It does read like an opinion piece at times. but does score some good points.

Well it’s obvious which side of the fence that author is on. He is perfectly entitled to believe what he wants but I of course disagree with him on several points. I have no problem believing in Jesus as the crucified and resurrected Son of God and believing my doctor when he tells me to take a certain medication for my ailment. I have no problem praying to God just before I am wheeled into the operating room. Where science and my faith disagree, I will always side with my faith, but even then science is not my enemy.

We have discussed at length before that when science offers more feasible explanations of man's progress through nature than the myths and parables offered by ancient scribes, the devout dismiss those explanations out of hand. Women started life as a rib out of Adam's carcass is seen as a good rebuttal of evolution, for instance. I don't wish to resurrect that debate, but just to recall what fire can be ignited when science gives a better account than "God did it!"

More feasible explanation to whom? Better account to whom? Probably to someone like you who does not see the world through the same lens I do. I see nothing strange or unusual in God pulling a rib from Adam to create a woman. I mean, if God could create the universe out of nothing, making a woman from a rib is no great feat. Again, I appreciate science but where science disagrees with the Bible, I choose to believe the Bible. Believe it or not we are both men of faith. Me, in God and you, in science.

The science of linguistics gives a compelling picture of the origins of our various languages, tracing all of them back to African "click" talk.

Dogma demands we accept that God was so incompetent to prevent a tower being built tall enough for people to peep into heaven itself, the only way to thwart its construction was to give the builders different languages so they could not work together.   As others once said "Ye gods and small fishes!"

And for what it is worth, even the Discovery Center now accepts that microscopic critters evolve into new variants.   Progress of sorts, but they are still liable to trot out the old straw man:  two cows cannot produce a piglet.

I don’t accept variations in language via dogma, but through faith. And critters do not evolve. They mutate. The corona virus has mutated but it is still a virus. It has not evolved into a tadpole.

BTW, the ability to change mans language overnight seems pretty competent to me.

"Not evolved into a tadpole". You might find a post available at the Discovery Institute to write straw man fallacies for them.

If that seems an act of competency to you, dogma is in very safe hands,

It’s not a straw man argument. It is truth. A virus may mutate but it does not evolve. It remains a virus.

Bill wrote:And for what it is worth, even the Discovery Center now accepts that microscopic critters evolve into new variants.   Progress of sorts, but they are still liable to trot out the old straw man:  two cows cannot produce a piglet.

Having given an example of that old straw man fallacy, I was a little taken aback that you then repeated it as if it had some validity.

The giraffe and the okapi had a common ancestor that evolved into two distinct breeds, neither of which is a fish.

They did not evolve. It’s called selective breeding. For example, through selective breeding there are numerous breeds of dogs, but they are still canines. They did not evolve into different creatures. Through selective breeding there are various breeds of cats; but they are all still considered felines. The theory of evolution suggests all life evolved from some single cell organism. That’s complete balderdash.

OK if you want to call evolution "selective breeding" that's ok. All you need to grasp is that those breeds can grow so far apart that they cannot mate anymore.

When one has only dogma in one's arsenal, debating intelligently is extremely difficult. But never forget, when you fall flat on your face yet once more, you are at least moving forward.

I hear some guy wants his money back from a DNA testing service when they stated the test showed that God was not his father.

And I’m good with you acknowledging evolution does not change one creature into a totally unrelated creature. We can both agree with the principle of selective breeding. African elephants and Asian elephants may not be able to easily mate, but they are both still pachyderms.

My son received a DNA kit for Christmas from his in-laws. He recently submitted his sample so I’m curious to find out our linage. I have been told I am English, Irish, Welch and native Native American on my dads side and just English on my mother’s. We’ll see in a couple of weeks. Who knows, you and I may be closer related than we think.

Don't you go throwing accusations like that! Heaven knows what it might lead to. (I use the word "heaven" in its figurative meaning, not its literal one)

Well, as we say in the south, you and I is kin. How close we is kin remains to be seen.

We are all brothers under the skin? That is a real killjoy to this thread.