Faith and science together

[spero]

One of the most frustrating things that human civilization has done to our perception of God and science is forming a barrier between the two in today's skeptic age. Some of the world's most renown scientific organizations have taken the stance that you cannot be a scientist if you believe in God. As if the two are incompatible.

THIS IS A HUGE LIE!!!!!!!

I love Jesus... And I love science. There is no scientific proof that opposes God. The only scientific instances that oppose God are the theories that have not been proven. Have you noticed this trend? Evolution and the origins of the universe (among other theories in science) are theories that aren't likely to be proven with raw evidence. These are ambiguous theories, and they will most likely remain ambiguous until we see Jesus face to face. Now, on the other hand, when you look at science that has been proven with raw evidence such as gravity in physics, physical/chemical changes of matter, procreation in biology, and the rock formations in geology, it seems more and more unlikely to be an accident the more you study.

When I look at science, I do it to take pleasure in the wonders God has created. Where the atheistic science organizations have said, "you cannot be a scientist and believe in God at the same time," I argue that it is more incompatible to be a scientist and disbelieve in God!

[Guest]

Amen~!

[DC10]

"Some of the world's most renown scientific organizations have taken the stance that you cannot be a scientist if you believe in God."

Can you name a few, Spero? As someone who believes in God but makes a living from Science, I'm amazed any scientific organization would make such a claim - and nor is it remotely true - when I was in research we had a very active Christian Union, and several of my co-workers and fellow authors were Christians - one of the best was a Creationist. One's faith should not interfere with one's ability to do a job (or get paid for having fun, in my case) although it should always affect the behaviour of the worker, as witness to that faith.

Which aspects of evolutionary science do you feel can't be proved, btw?

[DC10]

I agree your points D9, but you will sometimes see authors use "prove" in the legal sense, meaning to test - more formally "demonstrate by evidence or argument the truth or existence of" (Concise Oxford English Dictionary). The evidence is, to my mind, overwhelming.

[j102]

Some of the world's most renown scientific organizations have taken the stance that you cannot be a scientist if you believe in God.

I suppose I must add my voice to that of D-9. Like him I have never heard of such an organization. Are you speaking from particular knowledge you possess or are you simply making an assumption?

THIS IS A HUGE LIE!!!!!!!

... There is no scientific proof that opposes God.

I would be hard pressed to name a single scientist who thinks science disproves God. Can you name one? Perhaps you could provide a quote?

richard dawkings and stephen hawkings come to mind.

[ByFaithAlone]

Some of the world's most renown scientific organizations have taken the stance that you cannot be a scientist if you believe in God.

I suppose I must add my voice to that of D-9. Like him I have never heard of such an organization. Are you speaking from particular knowledge you possess or are you simply making an assumption?

THIS IS A HUGE LIE!!!!!!!

... There is no scientific proof that opposes God.

I would be hard pressed to name a single scientist who thinks science disproves God. Can you name one? Perhaps you could provide a quote?

richard dawkings and stephen hawkings come to mind.

These people merely believe that God is not necessary to explain the universe not that God doesn't exist.

[Guest]

In saying all this, the theory of evolution is what you get after crunching all the data. In a nutshell, theories are what explain the data and observations.

In a 'nutshell can' you produce (on this thread) the required evidence that demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that man and chimp have a common ancestor?

Nope! You don't deserve another word from me until you rethink how to debate properly.

Resolve: Is The Faith Based Knowledge Of God Gleaned From The Bible Both A Proper And A Reasonable Result?

~

The Warrant: The More Bible A Seeker Of Truth Will Study With An Open Mind And Heart

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17

The More He (Or She) Will Discover Who The Jesus Of The Bible Really Is And The Closer He (Or She) Will Draw To The Truth

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

~

The Data: Bible Readers And Believers Grow Deeper In Their Love And Trust Of Jesus And His Heavenly Father With Every Study Of The Bible

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.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:16-18

- - -

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. Hebrews 11:6-7

Whereas Bible Deniers Grow Shallow And Crass With Their Mistrust And Hatred Of The Jesus Of The Bible

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. Hebrews 3:12

- - -

There is no fear of God before their eyes. Romans 3:18

- - -

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. Galatians 5:19-23

Even Going So Far As To Taint Science With Pagan Mythology

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

~

The Claim: Therefore I Conclude That Faith And Worship Is The Only Reasonable And Proper Response To The Bible And To It's Jesus

[Guest HisG]

So ..... you guys are deceitful. (the atheists like to play games with each other ....)

Great work guys.

Nothing else ya'll say is credible in the least.

[Guest HisG]

You atheists are a joke : )

[ByFaithAlone]

Some of the world's most renown scientific organizations have taken the stance that you cannot be a scientist if you believe in God.

I suppose I must add my voice to that of D-9. Like him I have never heard of such an organization. Are you speaking from particular knowledge you possess or are you simply making an assumption?

THIS IS A HUGE LIE!!!!!!!

... There is no scientific proof that opposes God.

I would be hard pressed to name a single scientist who thinks science disproves God. Can you name one? Perhaps you could provide a quote?

richard dawkings and stephen hawkings come to mind.

These people merely believe that God is not necessary to explain the universe not that God doesn't exist.

Clarification - are you saying that Dawkins is not an a-theist of the evangelical type?

I don't know what you mean by evangelical type. I suppose he does try to spread his philosophy of naturalism which is separate from atheism but he tends to link the two.

I do not think Adam is a literal being; I do not view Genesis literally.

As a theistic evolutionist (an oxymoron) you can't believe Adam was literal. Jesus referred to Adam as an historic person - was Jesus wrong? Was the Word (Jesus Christ) with God in the beginning - according to your worldview?

How exactly do you claim that Jesus viewed Adam literally? From everything I have read (aka the entire Bible multiple times + a multitude of scholarly articles) one could take Adam to be a literal figure or just an allegorical representation of man.

An interesting article exploring this concept is here: http://biologos.org/blog/adam-and-eve-literal-or-literary

And also here: http://biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-fall