Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

When does science help us understand God?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
28 replies to this topic

#1
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 733 posts

Throughout history we have had folks who have gone against the contemporary (of the time) view of the bible.  We have had people put to death and locked up over the revolutionary ideas that the earth is not flat, and the sun does not revolve around the earth.  In the face of overwhelming evidence, religion folded and embraced what the natural world was telling us.  For those YEC and creationist folks out there, don’t you realize centuries ago you would be railing against round-earthers and helio-centrists?  What evidence would it take to convince you of evolution?    Google Flat Earth Society - Index.  If you go there, you might understand how anyone with any science education views you.  It’s quite an eye opener…So, when do we start persecuting Galileo/Darwin, and when do we start using the valuable information he makes available?



#2
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,828 posts

Throughout history we have had folks who have gone against the contemporary (of the time) view of the bible.  We have had people put to death and locked up over the revolutionary ideas that the earth is not flat, and the sun does not revolve around the earth.  In the face of overwhelming evidence, religion folded and embraced what the natural world was telling us.  For those YEC and creationist folks out there, don’t you realize centuries ago you would be railing against round-earthers and helio-centrists?  What evidence would it take to convince you of evolution?    Google Flat Earth Society - Index.  If you go there, you might understand how anyone with any science education views you.  It’s quite an eye opener…So, when do we start persecuting Galileo/Darwin, and when do we start using the valuable information he makes available?

Wow.  Some pretty good history revisionism, there.   Galileo was a Chrstian who opposed the science of his day.  The geocentric view was not the religious view.  It was a scientist and Christian, a young earther, btw  who had the nerve to say that the earth orbited the sun and not the other way around.  

 

The Church embraced the science of the day.  It was men like Galieleo and Copernicus who told the scientific community they were wrong and paid a heavy price for that.   Even now, the scientific community is demanding that Christians acquiese to Evolution and what is considered 'science' and it ridicules those who don't bow the knee to the perceived infallibility of the scientific community.

 

What evidence would it take to convince me of Evolution??  It would take the kind of evidence that evolutionists can't provide, like completely step by step line of transitional fossils.  Darwin said the evidence for evolution would be in the fossil record.  So far, short of a few hoaxes and dry runs, the Evolutionary community hasn't turned up squat.  Evolution isn't science.  it is an unteseted hypothesis and a bad hypothesis at that.  If I were falling down drunk and stoned out of my gourd at the same time, I might be dumbed down enough to believe in junk science like evolution.



#3
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 733 posts

 

Throughout history we have had folks who have gone against the contemporary (of the time) view of the bible.  We have had people put to death and locked up over the revolutionary ideas that the earth is not flat, and the sun does not revolve around the earth.  In the face of overwhelming evidence, religion folded and embraced what the natural world was telling us.  For those YEC and creationist folks out there, don’t you realize centuries ago you would be railing against round-earthers and helio-centrists?  What evidence would it take to convince you of evolution?    Google Flat Earth Society - Index.  If you go there, you might understand how anyone with any science education views you.  It’s quite an eye opener…So, when do we start persecuting Galileo/Darwin, and when do we start using the valuable information he makes available?

Wow.  Some pretty good history revisionism, there.   Galileo was a Chrstian who opposed the science of his day.  The geocentric view was not the religious view.  It was a scientist and Christian, a young earther, btw  who had the nerve to say that the earth orbited the sun and not the other way around.  

 

The Church embraced the science of the day.  It was men like Galieleo and Copernicus who told the scientific community they were wrong and paid a heavy price for that.   Even now, the scientific community is demanding that Christians acquiese to Evolution and what is considered 'science' and it ridicules those who don't bow the knee to the perceived infallibility of the scientific community.

 

What evidence would it take to convince me of Evolution??  It would take the kind of evidence that evolutionists can't provide, like completely step by step line of transitional fossils.  Darwin said the evidence for evolution would be in the fossil record.  So far, short of a few hoaxes and dry runs, the Evolutionary community hasn't turned up squat.  Evolution isn't science.  it is an unteseted hypothesis and a bad hypothesis at that.  If I were falling down drunk and stoned out of my gourd at the same time, I might be dumbed down enough to believe in junk science like evolution.

 

so, are you saying that the likes of Galileo and Copernicus made their breakthroughs based on the bible, or did they make them based on observation?



#4
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,828 posts

 

 

Throughout history we have had folks who have gone against the contemporary (of the time) view of the bible.  We have had people put to death and locked up over the revolutionary ideas that the earth is not flat, and the sun does not revolve around the earth.  In the face of overwhelming evidence, religion folded and embraced what the natural world was telling us.  For those YEC and creationist folks out there, don’t you realize centuries ago you would be railing against round-earthers and helio-centrists?  What evidence would it take to convince you of evolution?    Google Flat Earth Society - Index.  If you go there, you might understand how anyone with any science education views you.  It’s quite an eye opener…So, when do we start persecuting Galileo/Darwin, and when do we start using the valuable information he makes available?

Wow.  Some pretty good history revisionism, there.   Galileo was a Chrstian who opposed the science of his day.  The geocentric view was not the religious view.  It was a scientist and Christian, a young earther, btw  who had the nerve to say that the earth orbited the sun and not the other way around.  

 

The Church embraced the science of the day.  It was men like Galieleo and Copernicus who told the scientific community they were wrong and paid a heavy price for that.   Even now, the scientific community is demanding that Christians acquiese to Evolution and what is considered 'science' and it ridicules those who don't bow the knee to the perceived infallibility of the scientific community.

 

What evidence would it take to convince me of Evolution??  It would take the kind of evidence that evolutionists can't provide, like completely step by step line of transitional fossils.  Darwin said the evidence for evolution would be in the fossil record.  So far, short of a few hoaxes and dry runs, the Evolutionary community hasn't turned up squat.  Evolution isn't science.  it is an unteseted hypothesis and a bad hypothesis at that.  If I were falling down drunk and stoned out of my gourd at the same time, I might be dumbed down enough to believe in junk science like evolution.

 

so, are you saying that the likes of Galileo and Copernicus made their breakthroughs based on the bible, or did they make them based on observation?

 

They were Christians who used science.  I realize that is a novel concept to you since you think that being a Christian = being uneducated and stupid.  

 

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were the founders of modern science and Christians like Christopher Wren and Robert Boyle who founded the Royal Society and other men like Francis Bacon, Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton, Johanes Kepler and others. 



#5
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 733 posts

 

  It was men like Galieleo and Copernicus who told the scientific community they were wrong and paid a heavy price for that.  

 So, you are saying the scienctific community locked them up and persecuted them?  Could you point me to the history text that states that?



#6
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 733 posts

 

 

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were the founders of modern science and Christians

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were able to leave their beliefs at the door when they put on their lab coats.  Everybody used to at least claim they were a Christian, including scientists, as to not do so could bring bodily harm - as religion has lost its stranglehold on us, we are not only able to do better science, we are better able to have a relationship with God.



#7
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,828 posts
Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were able to leave their beliefs at the door when they put on their lab coats

 

Wrong.  There is nothing about faith that taints science.   Science is the best means understanding the scope of God's creation.   Having that in your worldview doesn't taint how one does science.

 

 

Everybody used to at least claim they were a Christian, including scientists, as to not do so could bring bodily harm - as religion has lost its stranglehold on us, we are not only able to do better science, we are better able to have a relationship with God.

 

Actually many of those men wrote about their faith.  They didn't merely claim to believe in God.  Their faith enhanced how they did science and modern science is rooted their theories. 
 



#8
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 733 posts

 

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were able to leave their beliefs at the door when they put on their lab coats

 

Wrong.  There is nothing about faith that taints science.  

 

Does that go for Islam, Native American Spirituality, Hinduism, Buddhism etc?  There are many people who are have made astounding scientific breakthroughs who are not Christians.  Does their success affirm their religions/spiritualty as well as say someone like Newton?



#9
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,751 posts
 

 

 

The idea that almost everyone believed in a flat earth is a myth invented by American writer Washington Irving in the early 1800s and popularized by atheist Andrew Dickson White, in the late 1800s

 

Most interestingly,....

 

“The Flat Earth Society is an active organization currently led by a Virginian man named Daniel Shenton. Though Shenton believes in evolution and global warming, he and his hundreds, if not thousands, of followers worldwide also believe that the Earth is a disc that you can fall off of.”
Wolchover, N., Ingenious ‘Flat Earth’ Theory Revealed In Old Map, 23 June 2011

 

:24:

 

Now for the Real Laugher....

 

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely...
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece.  http://www.allabouts...f-evolution.htm

 

From above.....Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps."

 

Well....

 

"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories."
(Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)

 

"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps."  
Henry Gee PhD (Senior Editor, Nature) In Search of Deep Time  (2001)  p. 32

 

"Darwin's prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record."
Dr. Niles Eldridge, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum of natural History; The Myths of Human Evolution, (1982)  p.45-46

 

We don't see "slight successive variations" do we??  We see the exact opposite....  Uh Oh, but don't fret.... And Then......AbraCadabra!!  "Another" Ad Hoc Hypothesis Savior:  Punctuated Equilibrium!!  Brought to you by Stephen Gould (See: below) and his Graduate Assistant Dr. Niles Eldridge (See above)

 

Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDOscientific objects.

http://en.wikipedia...._hoc_hypothesis

 

Evolution's "ad hoc" hypothesis: (Punctuated Equilibrium, Convergent Evolution...et al)

 

PSEUDO-science: is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions.

http://www.webster-d...n/pseudoscience

 

"Science is also distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing."
Stephen Jay Gould, "Nonoverlapping magisteria", Natural History, March, 1997.

 

Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation and experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method. http://www.livescien...h.o45VB9bA.dpuf

 

In Short, Empirical Scientific Evidence Displays 4 Tenets:

 

Observable
Measurable/Testable
Repeatable
Falsifiable

 

Ask to Show ONE Empirical "Scientific" Evidence of Evolution!! :noidea:  :o  :horse:

 

All they have is an assumption "evolution did it" with Ad Hoc OBSERVATIONS!  The Whole Theory is a classic TEXTBOOK: Affirming the Consequent Logical Fallacy....

 

If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore P.

 

The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q.

 

1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag"  Ad Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Genetic Variation et al)
2. We observe (Ad Hoc Observation)
3. Therefore, Evolution is true.

 

 

1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
2) I feel very full;
3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.

 

Couldn't I have eaten Baby Short Back Ribs??  :huh:

 

toe is an Unverified /Untestable Hypothesis; hence, Unfalsifiable Assumption ... and as we have discovered (SEE: above in TOTO), is actually a Pseudo-science wrapped inside a Logical Fallacy which is propagated by Science "Priests" with an a priori commitment to a fairytale.  Plain and Simple!!

 

13th Century Alchemy has more Respectable Tenets.

 

 

Mutations/DNA/Irreducible Complexity et al, makes the above scenario Look Like "Real Science"



#10
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,828 posts

 

 

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were able to leave their beliefs at the door when they put on their lab coats

 

Wrong.  There is nothing about faith that taints science.  

 

Does that go for Islam, Native American Spirituality, Hinduism, Buddhism etc?  There are many people who are have made astounding scientific breakthroughs who are not Christians.  Does their success affirm their religions/spiritualty as well as say someone like Newton?

 

In context, I was was referring only to the Christian faith.  I know of no other faith that makes the unique claims about God that the Bible does, particularly as it relates to His relationship with creation.

 

The point I am making is that history proves that being a Christian and being a creationist has never, ever been a hindrance to one also being a scientist.  The notion that one must leave their faith at the door when they enter the lab is a ridiculous notion and not one that should be respected or taken seriously.



#11
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,272 posts

 

 

 

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were the founders of modern science and Christians

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were able to leave their beliefs at the door when they put on their lab coats.  Everybody used to at least claim they were a Christian, including scientists, as to not do so could bring bodily harm - as religion has lost its stranglehold on us, we are not only able to do better science, we are better able to have a relationship with God.

 

Newton was pretty explicit about being driven to discovery by God and specifically his Christian beliefs. He did not put those down and become secular while doing science at all. In fact, I might argue that his belief in God led him to expect an orderly and beautiful world, which is what he found. As for others, it was different for every person, but some certainly didn't have the modern sensibilities about 'methodological naturalism' that is enforced today.



#12
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 733 posts

 

 

 

 

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were the founders of modern science and Christians

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were able to leave their beliefs at the door when they put on their lab coats.  Everybody used to at least claim they were a Christian, including scientists, as to not do so could bring bodily harm - as religion has lost its stranglehold on us, we are not only able to do better science, we are better able to have a relationship with God.

 

Newton was pretty explicit about being driven to discovery by God and specifically his Christian beliefs. He did not put those down and become secular while doing science at all. In fact, I might argue that his belief in God led him to expect an orderly and beautiful world, which is what he found. As for others, it was different for every person, but some certainly didn't have the modern sensibilities about 'methodological naturalism' that is enforced today.

 

Could he have come to his conclusions if he had not known of the Christian God?  Many scientists make discoveries that even Enoch would recognize, and know nothing of Jesus.



#13
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,828 posts

 

 

 

 

 

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were the founders of modern science and Christians

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were able to leave their beliefs at the door when they put on their lab coats.  Everybody used to at least claim they were a Christian, including scientists, as to not do so could bring bodily harm - as religion has lost its stranglehold on us, we are not only able to do better science, we are better able to have a relationship with God.

 

Newton was pretty explicit about being driven to discovery by God and specifically his Christian beliefs. He did not put those down and become secular while doing science at all. In fact, I might argue that his belief in God led him to expect an orderly and beautiful world, which is what he found. As for others, it was different for every person, but some certainly didn't have the modern sensibilities about 'methodological naturalism' that is enforced today.

 

Could he have come to his conclusions if he had not known of the Christian God?  Many scientists make discoveries that even Enoch would recognize, and know nothing of Jesus.

 

That's the point.  The point is that being a Christian didn't hinder his ability to do science.  The argument being made is NOT that being a Christian makes one a better scientist.  The point is that Christianity isn't an impediment to science.



#14
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,272 posts

 

 

 

 

 

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were the founders of modern science and Christians

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were able to leave their beliefs at the door when they put on their lab coats.  Everybody used to at least claim they were a Christian, including scientists, as to not do so could bring bodily harm - as religion has lost its stranglehold on us, we are not only able to do better science, we are better able to have a relationship with God.

 

Newton was pretty explicit about being driven to discovery by God and specifically his Christian beliefs. He did not put those down and become secular while doing science at all. In fact, I might argue that his belief in God led him to expect an orderly and beautiful world, which is what he found. As for others, it was different for every person, but some certainly didn't have the modern sensibilities about 'methodological naturalism' that is enforced today.

 

Could he have come to his conclusions if he had not known of the Christian God?  Many scientists make discoveries that even Enoch would recognize, and know nothing of Jesus.

 

For him, it seems that his belief in God was a motivator for his doing science. Was that a necessary condition for Newton's doing the physics he did? I can't say either way.



#15
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 733 posts

 The argument being made is NOT that being a Christian makes one a better scientist.  The point is that Christianity isn't an impediment to science.

 

And I would say religion in science is unnecessary altogether.  There is no field of science that is benefited by believing in the God of the Bible – or any god for that matter.



#16
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 733 posts

 

 

 

Mutations/DNA/Irreducible Complexity et al, makes the above scenario Look Like "Real Science"

 

Looks can be deceiving.  I find an overabundance of emoticons is compensation for a lack of of substance.



#17
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

I think Galileo's faith was a little more nuanced than those in authority in his day, and even now as the battle wages on in faith and science.



#18
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

 

 The argument being made is NOT that being a Christian makes one a better scientist.  The point is that Christianity isn't an impediment to science.

 

And I would say religion in science is unnecessary altogether.  There is no field of science that is benefited by believing in the God of the Bible – or any god for that matter.

 

I would echo Einstein's words:  Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.



#19
Hawkins

Hawkins

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 281 posts

In the past, religion was in control over science, that is, science would have to give way if it violated a religious concept. This is no longer the situation. It is even in the very contrary that science is now in control over religion, that is, if a religious concept violates a scientific concept, people will demand the religion to give way. In the case, we need to review whether the "science" in this situation is actually a new religion advocating a "flat earth" then force it over an old religion.



#20
Hawkins

Hawkins

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 281 posts

What evidence would it take to convince you of evolution?

 

All I can say is that you posses a twisted concept about what science that your fallacious concept is never convincing. You can be convincing only when you are capable of possessing a correct concept of what science is.

 

A true science doesn't rely on evidence to convince people. A true is to discover the set of rules behind a repeating behavior (phenomenon). We can predict this behavior as it repeats.

 


=======
There's a reason why science can prove things beyond doubt where faith is considered having no bearing.

For a simplified example, water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen. You can make such a prediction before each experiment that "water will dissolve into hydrogen and oxygen disregarding when and where you do the experiment". If your this prediction shall failed, you can get a Nobel Prize because this is the way how the formula is falsified. You make predictions which will never fail (or else you can get a Nobel Prize), this is what the nature of science is. A human brain will know for sure (without faith) that it is a truth because the endless repeatedly made predictions will never fail.

This is regarding to the predictability of science. Predictability depends on repeatability (things must be repeatable to make the predictions), and without predictability it's not a science. However, today's human call everything a science even that without any predictability.

For another example, if you try to conclude that cat is a result of evolution, you need to make a cat from a single cell repeatedly till you can predict that "if you follow these procedures, the single cell will certainly be turned to a cat (but not a dog)". And your this prediction never fail, then you are holding the truth. This is what science is.

However, humans (including scientists) know that the above (turning cell to cat) is not possible. That's why the scientists have already abandoned the true scientific approach. Instead of confirming a scientific truth by repeated predictions without failure, they start to use another approach to try to find out the truth of the origin of species. They try to look into the past to collect the so-called "evidence". However, this approach is hardly a science.

You need to know what limits humans are facing, before you draw your own conclusion.

Yet another example, why the Big Bang Theory is controversial because the Big Bang itself never repeats in front of humans. Strictly speaking it's not a science because you can never get the predictability out of it until it repeats. Subsequently, since it cannot be confirmed scientifically, you can have multiple theories about what it is. And you can choose one of them to believe with faith.
=======

The "science" in the mouth of the atheists won't attain the same accuracy as a true science does in detecting a truth. Worst still, they can no longer tell what is a truth beyond doubt and what is an assumption requiring faith. They are the true religionists who believe whatever being called "science".





Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network