Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

There is no Faith vs. Science

112 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

As God is the Author of both Faith and Science, there cannot be any contradiction between the two. What does create a conflict is misplaced Faith and bad Science. The controversy today basically boils down to atheism vs. theism. Been going on since the Garden of Eden.

Question: What has Science actually proven empirically that goes against the Christian Faith?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The left have been pushing the either, or for decades now. The idea is to paint believers as ig'nurt, book burnin' savages. While of course they appear to be people of reason, intellect, and "just the facts ma'am". It will ever be thus.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

As God is the Author of both Faith and Science, there cannot be any contradiction between the two. What does create a conflict is misplaced Faith and bad Science. The controversy today basically boils down to atheism vs. theism. Been going on since the Garden of Eden.

Question: What has Science actually proven empirically that goes against the Christian Faith?

To answer your question, I would propose that it all depends on which Scientists you trust and heed. The average layman (I include myself here) can't really follow the mind-boggling complexity of advanced Science. To prove anything to yourself (or to others) empirically you would have to be an expert in many fields of Science, which is, for most people, quite impossible.

I trust God and his Word, and will consider any theory that appears to conform to it.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Question: What has Science actually proven empirically that goes against the Christian Faith?

Depends on what you want to count as part of the Christian faith.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Question: What has Science actually proven empirically that goes against the Christian Faith?

Depends on what you want to count as part of the Christian faith.

You

That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:9-12

Think

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

~

If And When You Are Ready To Really Know The Living God Of Abraham, Isaac And Jacob

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

Call On The Jesus Of God's Word, The LORD God

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call. Joel 2:32

The Creator Of The Genesis Of All

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. Colossians 1:17-18

Or Not

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:35-36

~

Believe And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

As God is the Author of both Faith and Science, there cannot be any contradiction between the two. What does create a conflict is misplaced Faith and bad Science. The controversy today basically boils down to atheism vs. theism. Been going on since the Garden of Eden.

Question: What has Science actually proven empirically that goes against the Christian Faith?

I am not aware of the existence of atheists on the Garden of Eden.

Ciao

- viole

But oh yes viole, you were there. You were in the loins of your father Adam. So were the rest of your atheist friends! It was a big party but none of you believed it was going on...don't you remember? :)

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I like your sig Barabbas:

"If Jesus was a Socialist he would have paid for his sacrifice with someone else's blood"

:thumbsup:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Science, by definition, does not possess the requirement to comform to anyone's word. If it did, it would not be science.

And this is precisely why there is a Faith Vs. Science, and the name of this subforum is appropriate.

Hi Viole,

you mean that science does not possess the requirement to conform to the words of Christians (or other religious people but let's focus on Christianity here).

From this you infer that there must be a conflict between Christian faith and science. I don't agree with that conclusion and you didn't give any grounds, btw..

In my opinion, science always conforms to God's word if performed properly. In this I agree with the OP.

Blessings

Thomas

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

can you make an example of a scientific theory that does not conform to God's Word because it has not been performed properly?

Hi Viole,

no, I cannot make such example.

Or do you filter correctness using conformity to God's Word? IOW: X theory is surely not correct because it does not conform to God's Word.

Well, I'm not so much interested in scientific theories. In this, I am different than you. I am happy to use products that came out of scientific research, though.

Ciao

Thomas

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Viole,

I base my attitudes on faith in the living and almighty God, who is here right among us.

Here you're pretending to speak for us:

Everybody is happy to use the products of science (with the possible exception of the Unabomber), and this is why believers do not want to see a conflict between science and faith. [bolded mine]

Viole, I find it quite nerve-racking that you implicitely brag about being able to know us when you don't show any understanding for the Bible. We love God, we trust him this is why we are happy to use his products.

In any case, science has priority, [...my snip...] ... for both believers and unbelievers.

Are you again pretending to speak for us believers? I would find it awkward that you assume to be able to speak for us.

Can I ask you to leave your assumptions in the field of atheistic attitudes (if anybody is interested in this here)? I would like to speak for myself.

Thomas

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Viole,

I base my attitudes on faith in the living and almighty God, who is here right among us.

Here you're pretending to speak for us:

Everybody is happy to use the products of science (with the possible exception of the Unabomber), and this is why believers do not want to see a conflict between science and faith. [bolded mine]

Viole, I find it quite nerve-racking that you implicitely brag about being able to know us when you don't show any understanding for the Bible. We love God, we trust him this is why we are happy to use his products.

In any case, science has priority, [...my snip...] ... for both believers and unbelievers.

Are you again pretending to speak for us believers? I would find it awkward that you assume to be able to speak for us.

Can I ask you to leave your assumptions in the field of atheistic attitudes (if anybody is interested in this here)? I would like to speak for myself.

Thomas

Alles klar.

Why are you so sensitive? Exposed nerve?

[...]

So, keep cool, and try to articulate a sensible rebuttal for my, potentially wrong, arguments.

Ciao

- viole

Viole,

nice to read some German.

However, what I don't like is the following rubbish: you put up a claim about us. And when I tell you I don't like it, you suggest that I should provide a rebuttal. Are you robbing my time resources? Please stay with your opinions in the field of atheistic attitudes, then I keep cool.

But I will never be shown to be wrong (which I do not necessarily dislike) by using emotional thinking.

you seem to show quite a sound self-esteem in presenting your opinions about us believers. I don't have any idea how that could be justified...

Have a cool evening

Thomas

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

...ahem...in the OP-

Question: What has Science actually proven empirically that goes against the Christian Faith?

Viole, you have not answered this question...please, instead of telling us bible thumping, scientifically challenged ignoramus's what we are all about, take up the OP question.

Batter up.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

can you make an example of a scientific theory that does not conform to God's Word because it has not been performed properly?

Performed propely? How on earth is a theory "performed properly"?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

There are tons of things in science that contradict beliefs of fundamentalists or conservatives, and I would go so far as to say many don't even like the methodology of science whether they realize it or not. I reckon most people here view those things as necessary to Christianity, but talk to main-stream denominations and they don't think those beliefs are necessary for Christianity and many of them reject those beliefs.

Science is science, and some Christians use science to inform their faith and others don't. When you don't, what usually happens is that science will end up contradicting your beliefs, and that in of itself is an inherent conflict of the two.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Swing, and a miss....

There are tons of things in science that contradict beliefs of fundamentalists or conservatives, and I would go so far as to say many don't even like the methodology of science whether they realize it or not.....

Science is science, and some Christians use science to inform their faith and others don't. When you don't, what usually happens is that science will end up contradicting your beliefs, and that in of itself is an inherent conflict of the two.

Tons? Name some.

Don't like the methodology? Buhahahahahah Where do you people come up with this stuff?

Typically this is really about the religion of Evolution vs. the Christian world view.

To say that Christians don't like, or even hate science is nothing more than Christophobic bigotry, and...a lie.

Soooooo, how about it, other than Evolution, what exactly contradicts the beliefs of Christians.

And, other than the religion of Evolution, what science is it that Christians "hate"?

Bring something to the table please instead of the "You bible thumpers don't like science" phony narrative.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Swing, and a miss....

There are tons of things in science that contradict beliefs of fundamentalists or conservatives, and I would go so far as to say many don't even like the methodology of science whether they realize it or not.....

Science is science, and some Christians use science to inform their faith and others don't. When you don't, what usually happens is that science will end up contradicting your beliefs, and that in of itself is an inherent conflict of the two.

Tons? Name some.

Don't like the methodology? Buhahahahahah Where do you people come up with this stuff?

Typically this is really about the religion of Evolution vs. the Christian world view.

To say that Christians don't like, or even hate science is nothing more than Christophobic bigotry, and...a lie.

Soooooo, how about it, other than Evolution, what exactly contradicts the beliefs of Christians.

And, other than the religion of Evolution, what science is it that Christians "hate"?

Bring something to the table please instead of the "You bible thumpers don't like science" phony narrative.

Amen~!

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms 119:11

Some Hate Jesus

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

And Jibber-Jabber On Like Fools

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

Whereas Others Love Jesus

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:10-12

And Worship At Their Creator's Feet

When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. Matthew 2:9-11

~

The Question Is

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20

Which Way

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

Will You

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

Walk?

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 1 John 2:15-18

Hum....

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:2-4

~

Believe

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

And Be Blessed Beloved

And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. John 1:51

Love, Joe

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Tons? Name some.

Don't like the methodology? Buhahahahahah Where do you people come up with this stuff?

Typically this is really about the religion of Evolution vs. the Christian world view.

To say that Christians don't like, or even hate science is nothing more than Christophobic bigotry, and...a lie.

Soooooo, how about it, other than Evolution, what exactly contradicts the beliefs of Christians.

And, other than the religion of Evolution, what science is it that Christians "hate"?

Bring something to the table please instead of the "You bible thumpers don't like science" phony narrative.

Evolution is a big part, mostly because of the massive campaign for over a century by the fundamentalists. Another big part is the age of the earth/universe which coincides with the fields of physics, chemistry, geology, and astronomy - heck the city of Jericho (~11,000) is nearly twice the age of the universe according to the strictest definition of YEC (~6,000). There's the global flood issue, the big bang, and star/planet formation. I've also interacted with several fundamentalists that denied Einstein's theory of relativity because it demonstrates that light cannot go faster than "C". But recall that many Christians have embraced these ideas, so it depends on what brand of Christianity you're talking about, even among fundamentalists there is variation.

As for the methodology I've interacted with literally dozens, some on this site, that have complained about theories in science because they are "naturalistic". However science is "naturalism", which is why Intelligent Design or it's proper name Creation Science cannot be a scientific theory as it proposes non-natural theories. Another thing about the methodology of science is that you let the evidence tell you what reality is, whereas in creation science they start with the conclusion and fit the evidence to their pre-conceived ideas. If you go to creation science websites often you'll find statements like this taken from Answers in Genesis: By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

IOW, if the evidence doesn't fit with creationism, it is invalid according to creation scientists. This is the exact opposite of how science actually operates. If the evidence doesn't fit with your model, your model is wrong, not the evidence.

Again not all Christians think like this, most don't actually, so it depends on the brand of Christianity.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Evolution is a big part, mostly because of the massive campaign for over a century by the fundamentalists. Another big part is the age of the earth/universe which coincides with the fields of physics, chemistry, geology, and astronomy - heck the city of Jericho (~11,000) is nearly twice the age of the universe according to the strictest definition of YEC (~6,000). There's the global flood issue, the big bang, and star/planet formation. I've also interacted with several fundamentalists that denied Einstein's theory of relativity because it demonstrates that light cannot go faster than "C". But recall that many Christians have embraced these ideas, so it depends on what brand of Christianity you're talking about, even among fundamentalists there is variation.

As for the methodology I've interacted with literally dozens, some on this site, that have complained about theories in science because they are "naturalistic". However science is "naturalism", which is why Intelligent Design or it's proper name Creation Science cannot be a scientific theory as it proposes non-natural theories. Another thing about the methodology of science is that you let the evidence tell you what reality is, whereas in creation science they start with the conclusion and fit the evidence to their pre-conceived ideas. If you go to creation science websites often you'll find statements like this taken from Answers in Genesis: By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

Great. So having said that, which one of these bold claims isn't built on the assumptions made by evolutionists?

IOW, if the evidence doesn't fit with creationism, it is invalid according to creation scientists. This is the exact opposite of how science actually operates. If the evidence doesn't fit with your model, your model is wrong, not the evidence.

Again not all Christians think like this, most don't actually, so it depends on the brand of Christianity.

So far, I have found the exact opposite to be true. But since you brought this point up then please give some examples, and show how the way creationists deal with the "evidence" is different that how evolutionists deal with it.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Another big part is the age of the earth/universe which coincides with the fields of physics, chemistry, geology, and astronomy - heck the city of Jericho (~11,000) is nearly twice the age of the universe according to the strictest definition of YEC (~6,000).

If all of the assertions made in each of those field were indesputable, then you would have a point. But as soon as something is in dispute then a decision has to be made. What you, and all other evolutionists are doing, is bundling together all the choices made in favor of an old universe and presenting them as though they all magically "agree" with each other. That is nonsense. ALL dating methods are built on assumption, and making them agree is childsplay. All you need to do is ignore counter-evidence, the very thing you accuse creationists of doing, or adjust the prevailing theory to "fit the evidence" and then speak about how great science is simply because it is self-correcting.

There's the global flood issue, the big bang, and star/planet formation.

Oh I see, simply naming these things is enough.

What "global flood issue"? Who told you the big bang theory was a fact? And what about star/plantet formation?

You need to sort out what the facts are, and what is assumed, and come back to me when you think you know what you are talking about.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I wonder why there is any residual doubt about the issue :)

That's what people usually say when they just assume that since so many people believe in evolution, then it must be true. Don't worry about the fact that this kind of reasoning has quite a strong snowballing effect in itself and that practically everyone on the face of the earth is being indoctrinated from childhood that evolution is a fact.

Could you please explain to us what science for you is

Science for me is whatever is observable, repeatable and testable.

apart from the vanishingly small subset of scientific facts which do not conflict with Scripture?

There is no "vanishingly small subset of scientific facts" that conflict with scripture. What actually is happening is that the the number of assumptions that conflict with scripture are increasing. Big difference!

For instance, which of the following is science:

"- Physics: shows that speed of light is constant, therefore the universe is very old."

Science: the speed of light is constant.

Not science: therefore the universe is very old.

"- Cosmology/astronomy: Big Bang and inflation cosmology: stars created all the time"

Not science. Not one star has ever been observed forming.

"- Geology/Oceaonography: shows that there was never a global flood"

Not science. Please try to distinguish between what geologists and ocenographers believe and what they know. Scientists cannot even agree about is happening on the earth today, where conditions are directly observable, let alone what happened thousands of years ago.

"- Biology/Zoology: shows how all life evolved from a common root"

Not science. This has never been observed.

"- Neuroscience: all our high level functions are emergent properties of our physical brain. No souls needed"

Not science. It is neither observable, nor provable, whether or not there is a soul. We know that the brain has areas that are used for different kinds of thoughts. Other than that we know very little.

"- Paleontology: well, no dinosaurs ever lived together with human, obviously"

Not science. By "living together" I take it you mean being fosilized together, or what? If so, then please tell me, given the availability of human fossils and so on, what scientific method you have used to calculate the likelyhood that both man and dinosaur would have been burried together.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

...ahem...in the OP-

Question: What has Science actually proven empirically that goes against the Christian Faith?

Viole, you have not answered this question...please, instead of telling us bible thumping, scientifically challenged ignoramus's what we are all about, take up the OP question.

Batter up.

No no, Barabbas, answering a question would probalbly give her the feeling of being on the same stage as we are... her likes are asking questions, I mean ... obviously.

Thomas

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Well, Citizenship pretty much smashes the ball outta the park. Kudos to you sir.

And, as I said, it really is just about evolution, not science it self. Lets be very clear on that one. Shall we?

Just throwing terms out there, shotgunning it in the hopes of a hit is poor form.

Because some Christian members, or groups believe something therefore all Christians have this view is a very shallow, and selfserving viewpoint.

Does every person who believes in evolution have the exact same view of it? No they do not. But somehow lumping all Christians together into a pile is valid.

@Viole-

- Physics: shows that speed of light is constant, therefore the universe is very old.

- Cosmology/astronomy: Big Bang and inflation cosmology: new stars born all the time and not only on a certain day

- Earth Sciences: shows that there was never a global flood

- Biology/Zoology: shows how all life evolved from a common root

- Neuroscience: all our high level functions are emergent properties of our physical brain. No souls found nor needed

- Paleontology: well, no dinosaurs ever lived together with humans, obviously

Let's see what's left. Not much

What? Not much is left? Again, it all comes down to evolution, not science itself. There is a lot, tons even, of science left that obviously does not conflict with anything Christians hold to be true. Now is there?

So the narrative that Christians "hate" science is a falsehood.

So therefore there is no dichotomy between believing in God, and believing in science, as much as the true believers of evolution like to pretend there is.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Great. So having said that, which one of these bold claims isn't built on the assumptions made by evolutionists?

All of them.

So far, I have found the exact opposite to be true. But since you brought this point up then please give some examples, and show how the way creationists deal with the "evidence" is different that how evolutionists deal with it.

I'm not going to waste my time tracking down papers of creation scientists in how they deal with the evidence, it's not going to change anyone's perception and I have better things to do with my time. I think that quote from AiG says it all though, if the evidence doesn't conform to creationism than the evidence must be wrong by definition. Such a statement would shock a scientist as it is a complete 180 to how science works.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

All of them.

Well I would say none of them. But just to start off somewhere, let's hear you explain, using facts only, how you know that the age of Jericho is over 10,000 years. No assumptions mind you...

I'm not going to waste my time tracking down papers of creation scientists in how they deal with the evidence, it's not going to change anyone's perception and I have better things to do with my time. I think that quote from AiG says it all though, if the evidence doesn't conform to creationism than the evidence must be wrong by definition. Such a statement would shock a scientist as it is a complete 180 to how science works.

Well, if you don't have time to back up what you say then why bother saying it? And I would expect specific examples where the actual evidence has not been dealt with properly, as opposed to a statement of faith.

Do you understand what a statement of faith is?

It is the declaration of what someone believes. It is not a licence to go beyond the scientific method when dealing with evidence as you seem to be accusing AIG of doing. IF you have any real examples of where AIG have done this then lay them on the table so we can all gasp and roll our eyes.

Now this might shock you, but BOTH creationist and evolutionist scientists work the same way. Both have a faith-based preconception about how evidence should be interpreted regarding origins and evolution, so there is no need to talk about any "complete 180" here.

Edited by Citizenship
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Well I would say none of them. But just to start off somewhere, let's hear you explain, using facts only, how you know that the age of Jericho is over 10,000 years. No assumptions mind you...

It really comes down to whether or not you trust the experts of said field, this goes for biology, physics, geology, chemistry, astronomy, history, and archaeology. I'm not an archaeologist or anything, I am not competent to sift through the data on why Jericho is over 10,000. What I know to the best of my ability is that virtually all relevant experts say that Jericho is roughly 11,000 years old and I have no reason to doubt them. I might be wrong, but I think archaeologists get their cues from the multiple settlements of Jericho and the artifacts each settlement has left behind including building and city designs.

Well, if you don't have time to back up what you say then why bother saying it? And I would expect specific examples where the actual evidence has not been dealt with properly, as opposed to a statement of faith.

Do you understand what a statement of faith is?

It is the declaration of what someone believes. It is not a licence to go beyond the scientific method when dealing with evidence as you seem to be accusing AIG of doing. IF you have any real examples of where AIG have done this then lay them on the table so we can all gasp and roll our eyes.

Now this might shock you, but BOTH creationist and evolutionist scientists work the same way. Both have a faith-based preconception about how evidence should be interpreted regarding origins and evolution, so there is no need to talk about any "complete 180" here.

Lets be real here, almost no one on this site backs up anything they say, that includes Christians, and I am not compelled to waste my time tracking down creationist articles to prove my point. I was asked what in science has gone against the Christian faith and I answered. What I presented is, as far as I know, the scientific consensus, and you can either say that you know more science than the scientific consensus or not, that is your choice.

Yes it's a statement of faith, but that is how they operate. By definition no evidence will ever show creationism wrong, they cannot even hypothetically conceive of evidence disproving their ideas, that's not science, logic, or rational. And these ideas permeate all of their work. It should be clear that they do not divorce their belief from their "science", their science is their belief dressed up in scientific sounding words, and that is not science.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0