Board Purpose

Important news and announcements

Board Purpose

Postby Kurieuo » Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:27 pm

Board Purpose
This board is a part of Evidence for God from Science (G&S), a Christian website, which serves to provide a defense and persuasive case for Christianity as well as encouragement and instruction for Christian people and seekers.

Who is the message board intended for?
This message board is publicly open to anyone who wishes to register, and participate in discussions, however it is only intended for a specific audience. It is intended to serve as a place for:
  1. Sincere seekers to inquire and ask questions;
  2. Christians to give and receive encouragement and instruction; and
  3. Non-Christians who are willing to "walk a thin line" and dialogue sensitively and respectfully.
This board is not for those who have strongly made up their mind that Christ is "not" for them; who merely wish to put down, debate, and argue against essential Christian beliefs. As such, those who are Christian, have not made up their minds, or desire civil discussions about Christianity are encouraged to join, while others who merely wish to attack and try to discredit Christianity are discouraged and will be heavily moderated.

Why disallow debating from those who strongly disagree with Christian beliefs?
G&S originally provided an open discussion board where Christians and non-Christians could debate and voice their arguments for and against Christianity. In hindsight, it did not seem like this was the best approach to fulfill the G&S purpose as the board became a hub for a much more vocal non-Christian crowd, rather than being a place of fruitful exchanges amongst Christians and helping seekers. So after thoughtful consideration, it was decided to limit participation in discussions to a certain group of people--Christians and those open to Christian beliefs.

But I see so many distortions... I just want to enlighten others with my knowledge!
If you feel this strongly it is likely what you have to say will likely not be appreciated or accepted. So please respect the desire purpose of this message board. There are many other places on the Internet where one can enter into debate.

On an important note, some people do not like the "science" communicated by posters on the board. What posters write will even largely differ to what is advocated on the G&S website, for example, the Day-Age literal interpretation of Genesis 1 which accepts the science of the Earth being several billions years old, and a universe which has been expanding for about 14 billion years. Yet, as this is a Christian board, other Christian perspectives are welcome including Young-Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists. We will not accept a strictly Materialist-Evolution accounting of origins since this is in direct opposition with essential Christian beliefs.

To be clear, we will heavily moderate those who attempt to support a neo-Darwinian form of evolution, which is strictly Materialistic and Atheistic, and which rules out any possible influence or intervention from a divine being such as the Christian God within creation. There are many understandings of "Evolution", and a paper we recommend reading to clarify the different meanings is "The Meanings of Evolution" (PDF format) by Stephen Meyer and Michael Keas. The type of evolution not accepted here would come under the "Blind watchmaker thesis" in that paper:
the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.


But, it does not seem fair...
If what has been said here is found distasteful or objectionable, then we encourage you to please be honest, respect our purpose, and not participate at this message board. This will save any ill feelings down the track if a moderator messages you or even bans you in order to uphold the board purpose. Upon being messaged or banned, many have objected that it is "unfair" or "intolerant". Yet, such a person really shows their own intolerance by not wanting to allow one Christian board out of the many on the Internet to function in accordance with its beliefs as a Christian board.

To use an illustration, imagine if a Christian person registered on forums that belonged to a Jewish website. This Christian began posting how the Jews persecuted the early Christian Church, and pointing out any faults they thought existed within the Jewish faith irrespective of whether it was backed or not. It becomes readily apparent that the administrator(s) of that board would have every right to ban that Christian and remove their posts. It is simply not a board for the Christian to propagate their beliefs nor tear into Judaism for it is a Jewish board.

To provide another illustration, imagine if a Muslim entered your home and hung up the Koran above your door (or if you are Muslim substitute someone of another religion entering your home and doing something similar). Such a seemingly unacceptable action highlights the point that it is not always true that divergent faiths and beliefs should be given the same privileges, freedom, and level of acceptance everywhere. To say it is always true it to not respect another's personal space. So just like a Muslim would have no right to hang their Koran in your home without permission, simply because the home becomes "virtual" doesn't change this principle.

This board is a Christian home, and so while very open to sincere and honest questions, it is "not" a place where others of differing beliefs can promote their opinions while throwing any argument and complaint they can find against Christianity. If you think this is still unfair, then you are quite welcome to find and join some of the many other message boards found on the Internet.
User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
 
Posts: 2596
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 5:25 am
Location: QLD, Australia

Please clearify

Postby Salem » Mon May 26, 2008 2:14 am

Hello.
I am new. First thing; congratulation for your board. It looks extremely interesting.
Before being part of it I would like to ask few questions to moderators about the purposes
of the board and guidelines.

I accept that this is your home and I would like to avoid to be an unwanted guest.

Board Purpose wrote:This board is not for those who have strongly made up their mind that Christ is "not" for them;
who merely wish to put down, debate, and argue against essential Christian beliefs.
As such, those who are Christian, have not made up their minds, or desire civil discussions
about Christianity are encouraged to join, while others who merely wish to attack
and try to discredit Christianity are discouraged and will be heavily moderated.


Well I certainly have not made my mind about Christ, nor strongly or weakly. Not yet at least.
On the contrary I have beliefs about science.
According to many protestant churches (as well as Catholic church and Buddhists) I know
that science facts are not essential Christian beliefs.
I read that one of you (Canuckster1127) seems to support this view in his signature (quoting Agoustine)
But of course this could be different from what you mean here.

So please, can you be more specific about which scientific facts are essential Christian beliefs, in your view?

To be clear I am not talking about science-based world-views such as "materialism", but about
science facts (e.g. "all evidences point to the fact that all lifeforms on Earth are related and
share a common ancestor"). I am not implying that this claim is true, just that it is in the scope
of science and can be scientifically discussed as any other scientific claim.
I honestly see no religious implication of it.

The domain of this board is godandscience.org. While you have been explicit enough of the "god side",
I think you have not be rather clear about the "science side".

You said that you will moderate "neo-Darwinian form of evolution".
I have nothing against this decision, you are the masters in your home.
Just I see a difference between one saying

"according to evolution there is no place for God in the physical world"

and one claiming

"we have no evidence from science of unphysical actions in physical world, though of course this does not prove that no supernatural being exists or acted".

Of course, both could be wrong, but I see no reason to prevent discussions about the second.
But my view here is irrelevant. So what is your view?
Last edited by Salem on Mon May 26, 2008 2:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Salem
Newbie Member
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 1:48 pm
Location: Spain

Please clearify

Postby Salem » Mon May 26, 2008 2:14 am

Good start! Double posting!
Sorry for that, I still have to get used to the interface.
Salem
Newbie Member
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 1:48 pm
Location: Spain

Re: Board Purpose

Postby Canuckster1127 » Mon May 26, 2008 7:34 am

Salem,

Thanks for asking.

In short, I don't believe we would say that any scientific facts or approaches are necessary for Christian Belief. We believe that God is the source of all truth. We expect the Bible as revealed truth from God is going to be in accordance with natural truth which is revealed within the creation.

The conflicts, where they exist aren't between the Bible or Nature. Where conflict can enter in is through Theology which is man's interpretation of the Bible and through Science which is a man made method for approaching the creation and seeking to understand it.

All that is required for salvation for Man is revealed through the Bible. Therefore, science would not enter into the equation. There are no scienctific beliefs that are required or necessarily excluded.

Evolution is an issue for many in Christian movements however, the world evolution spans a great deal of use in our language and needs to be carefully defined in order to avoid confusion. Evolution in the more narrow sense as science, is not necessarily in conflict with Christian belief and doctrine. Evolution as a science is pretty well established to be at work as a fact in biological science. It is in fact, one of the better established scientific facts that we have and it is the basis for a great deal of study and the foundation for a great deal of knowledge and medical research and science.

However, evolution has been take in many regards beyond science and has been a launching point for a great many things that are not purely science. Where it has been extended out beyond a science into a philosophy it has been used to support a system of beliefs that are more properly called materialism or positivism which is used as a foundation to assert that God does not exist and that no evidence for God exists within the universe. This ceases to be science in that it is asserting a negative which is outside of the ability of science by definition to prove or disprove.

We on this board as established by Rich Deem who is the host and those of us who assist voluntarily as moderators, support the general purpose of this board which is to show that Christianity and Science are not incompatable. We do not base our faith upon science, but we expect that science will confirm the basic facts that are in the Bible which are asserted about the natural world in which we live. We look to that by way of confirmation, not the basis of our faith.

That said, there is still room for disagreement on may issues. This site is primarily Old Earth creationist. Speaking for myelf, I hold to the same basic position but I don't have a greast a grounding in science as Rich, for whom I have a great deal of respect. I'm expanding in this area as I'm completing a Master of Science Degree in Organizational Leadership which is a science based degree in the area of Psychology. What we're primarily seeking to establish here is a site where Christians and sincere seekers can interact and try to understand better how science and Christianity are not incompatable. Those who disagree with this position appear to be those who are on the extremes of both Christianity in terms of the positions of Young Earth Creationism which in some extreme forms appears to be a form of heresy at times to many of us. That doesn't mean we assert that all Young Earth creationists are heretics or that some forms of Young Earth Creationism are not tenable and can't be held in good conscience.

Likewise, as already mentioned, we also believe that materialism or positivism as a foundation for atheism is not a tenable position and is in basic opposition to the God of the Bible. Therefore as moderators we seek to enforce this board purpose and the related discussion guidelines. Those with their minds made up who are here to argue and debate for no purpose but to recruit for their own position are not welcome. Other sites exist for that purpose and they are welcome to go there. Our purpose is to constructively dialogue with Christians who wrestle with these issues or with seekers who have not yet come to Christ but may be wrestling with the idea that Christianity requires a rejection of science or embracing of ignorance of issues in this area. We don't believe that is necessary and is in fact a misreprentation of Christianity.

Other moderators please feel free to chime in and correct me if you believe I've overstated or missed anything.

Regards,

Bart
"Be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are farfetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers." St. Augustine

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein

Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.
User avatar
Canuckster1127
Board Admin
 
Posts: 2661
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:31 am
Location: Sterling, VA

Board Purpose

Postby Byblos » Tue May 27, 2008 5:16 am

Canuckster1127 wrote:Other moderators please feel free to chime in and correct me if you believe I've overstated or missed anything.


Beautifully stated; nothing to add.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
User avatar
Byblos
Board Admin
 
Posts: 1826
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:21 am
Location: NY

Re: Board Purpose

Postby peter » Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:18 am

hi

I am open to the idea of some sort of deity, but I am a science teacher, and is therefore very interested in the possibility of scientific/logical proof or disproval of gods existance. This is why I was quite excited to find your page with counterarguments to scientifc claims of proofs against god. However I see discrepancies etc. with some of the arguments Rich uses.

Is this the correct place to discuss the science and logic in his arguments? Whether or not scientific theories can or cannot prove or disprove gods existance, doesn't change the basic idea of god being possible despite science and logic. So I am not trying to threaten the existence of god, merely trying to keep the science used in conjunction with religion as 'scientific' as possible.

Maybe I am bot the most probable candidate for conversion, but on the other hand, not allowing challenge of ones scientifically based arguments, reduces the their credibilty quite a lot!
peter
Acquainted Member
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: Board Purpose

Postby Byblos » Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:57 am

peter wrote:hi

I am open to the idea of some sort of deity, but I am a science teacher, and is therefore very interested in the possibility of scientific/logical proof or disproval of gods existance. This is why I was quite excited to find your page with counterarguments to scientifc claims of proofs against god. However I see discrepancies etc. with some of the arguments Rich uses.

Is this the correct place to discuss the science and logic in his arguments? Whether or not scientific theories can or cannot prove or disprove gods existance, doesn't change the basic idea of god being possible despite science and logic. So I am not trying to threaten the existence of god, merely trying to keep the science used in conjunction with religion as 'scientific' as possible.

Maybe I am bot the most probable candidate for conversion, but on the other hand, not allowing challenge of ones scientifically based arguments, reduces the their credibilty quite a lot!


Hi Peter and thank you for this post. I don't believe there's an issue with you raising such questions. To be quite honest though, at least from my side, I am not in any way equipped to deal with the scientific arguments to such level of detail. As far as Rich is concerned, like I said in the other post, I hope he does get to respond but I sincerely doubt he will even see the posts.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
User avatar
Byblos
Board Admin
 
Posts: 1826
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:21 am
Location: NY

Re: Board Purpose

Postby Kurieuo » Fri Dec 12, 2008 4:40 pm

peter wrote:hi

I am open to the idea of some sort of deity, but I am a science teacher, and is therefore very interested in the possibility of scientific/logical proof or disproval of gods existance. This is why I was quite excited to find your page with counterarguments to scientifc claims of proofs against god. However I see discrepancies etc. with some of the arguments Rich uses.

Is this the correct place to discuss the science and logic in his arguments? Whether or not scientific theories can or cannot prove or disprove gods existance, doesn't change the basic idea of god being possible despite science and logic. So I am not trying to threaten the existence of god, merely trying to keep the science used in conjunction with religion as 'scientific' as possible.

Maybe I am bot the most probable candidate for conversion, but on the other hand, not allowing challenge of ones scientifically based arguments, reduces the their credibilty quite a lot!

Since they are Rich's arguments, if you are really interested in getting a response, then you should contact Rich directly. If you are more interested in debating your view on reality against that of Theism, then this Christian board is probably not the best place to do it. Consider this board as an online Christian church more than a symposium for debate. It is only intended for specific types of people: Christians and those open to Christianity.
User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
 
Posts: 2596
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 5:25 am
Location: QLD, Australia

Re: Board Purpose

Postby Ngakunui » Mon May 11, 2009 1:41 pm

Sir,

While I would like to go about thanking you first for what this website helped me out with relation to various scientific questions I was deeply bothered by, I must ask few questions regarding if the following types of topics are permissible for this board. Also, I apologize if I accidentally posted this in the wrong spot- I couldn't find anywhere else to post my questions.

First of all, I have a hypothesis of sorts that is currently unfinished that I believe mathematically proves the relevancy of various parables written in the bible, using a series of simple geometric measurements, and arithmetic that illustrates "fruitless" actions in the form of "sort of singularities" caused by merging lines. This is certainly relevant to both subjects of God and Science, but I'm unable to finalize it currently due to a stomach disorder of mine(That I've had for years, and has been acting up lately) that makes it extremely difficult for me to think and stay awake. I have a flawed "beta model" of the equation from where I forgot to actually calculate part of it, but nonetheless, I think the concept is relevant, albeit unfinished.

Also, as a side question, would it be acceptable if I were to write a topic criticizing the United Nations in the Politics subforum here, or would that be too much?

In addition, I'm a bit unused to this board's interface and overall structure, so please forgive me if I accidentally posted another topic instead of a reply.

God bless,



-Ngakunui
User avatar
Ngakunui
Familiar Member
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:08 pm

Re: Board Purpose

Postby cslewislover » Wed May 13, 2009 10:21 am

Ngakunui wrote: Sir . . .
Also, as a side question, would it be acceptable if I were to write a topic criticizing the United Nations in the Politics subforum here, or would that be too much?


That topic would be fine in the forum you mention (we're not all "Sirs" though :D ).
"And he will send his
angels with a loud trumpet
call, and they will gather
his elect from the four
winds, from one end of
the heavens to the other."
Matthew 24:31
Image
User avatar
cslewislover
Board Admin
 
Posts: 1275
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:09 pm
Location: Southern California


Return to News & Announcements

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests