Posted by:
elderolddog
(
)
Date: April 10, 2019 11:13AM
For all I know, 100% of the cited study is true. But there exists a lot of support for my contention that it isn't. Each of us can decide.
But here's some useful information for those wondering about this current dispute. It's about the source of your article, Breakpoint(dot)org. I got the following from their website. Maybe they're lying, but I tend to believe they are sincere:
"We live in a moment of cultural confusion. Fewer and fewer of the things that give meaning to our lives come easily. Family, community, beauty, truth seem to be constantly eroding around us—while our news feeds are full of despair, anger, and division.
How are Christians to make sense of the world around us? How can we make sure we have clarity in our daily lives?
Welcome to BreakPoint. A program of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, our commentaries offer incisive content people can’t find anywhere else; content that cuts through the fog of relativism and the news cycle with truth and compassion.
HOW TO GET IT:
Founded by Chuck Colson (1931 – 2012) in 1991 as a daily radio broadcast, BreakPoint provides a Christian perspective on today’s news and trends. Today, you can get it in written and a variety of audio formats: on the web, the radio, or your favorite podcast app on the go.
Daily: BreakPoint audio commentaries, hosted by John Stonestreet, air on more than 1,200 outlets with an estimated weekly listening audience of eight million people.
Weekly: Breakpoint This Week, featuring John Stonestreet and several co-hosts, is a weekly in-depth, 30-minute conversation on the news and major issues of the week.
Throughout the week: The BreakPoint Podcast, available on iTunes, Spotify, and major podcast apps, puts both of the above in one place, plus dedicated podcast interviews with leading thinkers and doers.
In addition to all the audio above, and The Point 60-second updates, BreakPoint.org hosts written posts and helpful links on both current events and issues relevant to culture, family, the church, and the things that define our lives.
ABOUT THE COLSON CENTER:
The Colson Center for Christian Worldview is a ministry that equips Christians to live out their faith with clarity, confidence, and courage in this cultural moment. Every day, we work to:
Offer incisive content people can’t find anywhere else; content that cuts through the fog of relativism and the news cycle with truth and compassion.
Provide training that unlocks every believer’s calling to restore culture.
Resource and activate a movement of Christians committed to cultural restoration."
--
http://www.breakpoint.org/about/So I think it's okay to accept that this is a Christian organization, with a Christian point of view. They are not likely to be involved in disseminating points of view contrary to the Christian perspective.
And the article, when read in full, confirms this. Once again you seem to hope that by cherry-picking what you pass along, people may be swayed. You leave out things like:
"First of all, the Bible says that the heavens declare the glory of God, and that anyone can learn something of God’s nature by what He has created. So even though some scientists say that the theory of evolution has made the idea of God unnecessary—Richard Dawkins for example once said that 'Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist'—the fact is, people inherently know that God exists, and they must suppress this truth if they’re going to claim atheism. This goes for scientists, as well."
It may well be that citing the bible in a scientific study is okay, but I think that study would be about how the mind plays tricks on people, or something along those lines.
It seems that your 'scientific study' had one purpose in mind, based on the accepted Christian 'fact' that the bible says that the heavens declare the glory of ghawd and that you can learn about ghawd by examining what he has created. I forget which of the pithy Latin phrases covers this, wherein you take a controversial position, declare it to be a truth and then applaud that the truth supports itself.
That you have a point of view is fine, but you do your POV real damage when you use data that upon examination is so easily refuted. I have no problem with you believing in your data, but when you haughtily declare, "I'm right, you're wrong" with only mendacious documentation to support your view, it leaves those of us interested in discussion shaking our heads in disbelief.
Find support for your 'arguments' that aren't so obviously mere propaganda. You can't use Warner Bros. cartoons to support the argument that rabbits can talk. Or rather, you probably shouldn't.