There is no Faith vs. Science

[Guest shiloh357]

And it is true that we have no clue how life started from non life. But this is not a sufficient condition to stop working on it assuming naturalism. We lacked clue about a lot of things in the past and If we stopped at "God did it, forget any other alternative" we would still be living in cold caves without tablet computers and the time to speculate about these issues.

Actually, that is not true. At the time your ancestors were a bunch naked savages living in squalor, the Jewish people who beleived in God had a far more sophisticated and complex society. They were far cleaner, far more technologically advanced than their godless counterparts.

Could be. Althought I don't think that the godless Romans had a lot of problems to occupy the whole region and finally build some viable roads, aqueducts and sanitation

Ciao

- viole

Invalid comparison. The Romans were polytheists. Your point is that religion is a hindrance to intellectual progress. Even though the Romans were polytheists, they were the most technologically advanced society of their day. The point is that religion has not EVER been a hindrance to science. The ancient Roman structures demonsrate a highly advanced knowledge of physics, even by our standards.

Another polytheistic culture was Egypt. Those religious people, for some reason, were able to apply the mathematical princple of pi long before the Greeks codified it. We are still baffled at how they built the pyramids, demonstrating a far higher technological capability that moden science is willing to give them credit for.

You atheists like to act as if believing God is for the intellectually weak, but history and science itself demonstrates over and over that you are wrong. The scientific method itself was devised by a scientist who was a Christian. That is why you only responded to part of what i said and ignored the part that poves your claims to be false. The Christian history of science is something that atheists can't seem to muster the courage to talk about.

If someone compare the Jewish people with my savage, unclean and naked pagan ancestors living in squalor , then I compare the pagan Roman Empire with the Jewish people at that time. I am not sure who will win in this comparison. But if we really insist in looking for a relationship between beliefs and civilization during a certain period of history, then, I am afraid, Jupiter would win hands down

That completely misses the point. I didn't compare religions. I am comparing religious history with your claim that if we stopped at "God did it" that there would be no more scientific progress. History is replete with VERY scientifically advanced societies (at least for their time period) and had strong religous influence, Christian or not. Religion has never been an impediment to science. In fact, it has been a driving force behind scienfitic inquiry in the past.

Even in Christian history, your owe a lot of scienctific disovery and technological advance to scientists who viewed science through the prism of their faith in God such as Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Bacon, Keppler, Wren, and others.

Even today, religious Jews in Israel are on the cutting edge of scientific and medical breakthroughs that are being shared all over the world. The Jewish religion is based on a prinicple of being a blessing to the world and many of the most important advances in medical science, particularly heart transplants, diesease cures and cures for auto-immune diseases are coming out of Israel.

[warriorforJesus]

Actually, not to be rude here, but I think it's more faith vs evolution. Some people believe in evolution (which I know is false) meaning that fish or stars made the world and not God. I believe more in the Creation. Actually, believing in evolution is stupid to me because Withiut God the two things I mentioned wouldn't exist.

[Guest]

Actually, not to be rude here, but I think it's more faith vs evolution. Some people believe in evolution (which I know is false) meaning that fish or stars made the world and not God. I believe more in the Creation. Actually, believing in evolution is stupid to me because Without God the two things I mentioned wouldn't exist.

Evolution is how things came about not about finding proof for an Intelligent Design or not (this is when science should take a step back in my opinion).Science is looking at what happened or what is highly likely to have happened, based on experience through the scientific method. Evolution does not rule out creation and creation does not rule out evolution.

Ah~!

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. Hebrews 3:13

Evolution Is

And they said, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart. Jeremiah 12:18

A Whisper From First Liar

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Genesis 3:1(a-c)

And Evolution Rules Out The Christ

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 Without Christ

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

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. Colossians 1:14-17

It's Hell

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:11-15

You

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

See?

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. John 6:47

~

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

Love, Joe

[AlexanderJ]

It's not my fault creationism has turned away from convincing the scientific community, and is instead trying to push their way into the public school system and otherwise trying to convince the average person that doesn't know squat about science. That is just what creationists have decided to do with their time, money, and effort to promote creationism instead of building up robust experiments to convince the scientific community. There simply is no scientific opposition to evolution, and those that do support creationism are few and far between and are not taken seriously by their peers in such matters.

I didn't put creationism into such a box, creationists did it to themselves. Is it "mockery", not sure, but regardless it's the truth, and the truth isn't always warm and fuzzy.

It seems to me that you have a rather narrowminded and uninformed view regarding Creationism. There are many scientists who support Creationism (see http://www.truenews....scientists.html ) not that this proves whether Creationism is true or false, of course. What it does prove, however, is that there are many good scientists who believe in Creationism.

The reason that the Creation Scientists are not taken seriously is because they are an unpopular minority, not because of the veracity of their arguments. The Scientific Community has always been hard on the nonconformists. (Remember Galileo?)

P.S. Of course, I am not saying that because Creationists are a minority this proves that they are correct. Whether the party in question belongs to a Minority or a Majority does nothing to prove the veracity of it's beliefs.

[Citizenship]

I didn't say anything about creationism being real science. Only that your claim is that no real science goes against creationism/Christianity, and that evolution is not real science. So can you define evolution?

Evolution maintains that every living thing is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutation and natural selection. What observable, testable and repeatable evidence can you provide that this has happened?

I think it is pretty obvious that God is supernatural by any conventional definition as used by believers and unbelievers. The Bible also says that God is "spirit", and makes a clear distinction between the spiritual and the "flesh" - with the flesh commonly interpreted as the physical. God is not only invisible, but incorporeal made of spirit and not flesh according to standard theology. Gravity is physical and we can manipulate gravity via physical means. I do not think we can manipulate God, miracles, or the spiritual realm in a similar way.

It is standard philosophy of science, no supernatural explanations. I don't know if you have a problem with that or not, but if you do have a problem with that, you have a problem with the scientific method.

I don't have any "problems" other than those I have pointed out. My question was not directed towards finding out what the "conventional definition" of anything is and I don't think I have been asserting that the designer in this case is the Biblical God, although of course this is my belief. The "creator" merely would have to have sufficient intelligence to be able to design the universe and life on earth and would not need to be any more visible than gravity.

Furthermore, there is nothing more religious in that belief than there is in the belief in evolution. Even Michael Ruse, a leading anti-creationalist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion (1.Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.)

Both believing in a creator, or disbelieving in a creator can let religious motivation effect the way they interpret scientific data. I don't know what you're referring to when you talk about unobservable explanations in science.

What part of gravity is unobservable?

What part of God is unobservable?

Gravity is a theory - it has an effect that we can observe. The big bang has never been observed. All we can do is observe what we consider to be its effects. What excludes a designers effect from being considered science?

It's not my fault creationism has turned away from convincing the scientific community, and is instead trying to push their way into the public school system and otherwise trying to convince the average person that doesn't know squat about science.

Creationists are simply doing what anyone would do. Quite obviously you don't object to the fact that Darwin, despite the fact that he could not convince the scientific community of his time about what he believed, persevered and followed his convictions. You also don't object to the fact that evolutionists have similarly pushed their way into the public school system and are constantly broadcasting evolution is being factual to the "average person that doesn't know squat about science."

That is just what creationists have decided to do with their time, money, and effort to promote creationism instead of building up robust experiments to convince the scientific community.

Creationist ARE trying to do that, against strong opposition, but what exactly do you think the prospects are when evolutionists constantly ignore any evidence, even secular evidence, that contradicts the precious paradigm that no one wants to abandon - for obvious reasons!

Think about it! Who in the scientific communitity is going to throw up a flag and suddenly announce that evolution is wrong and that the past 150 years of reseach has been based on a lie? There is way too much at stake for anything like that to happen. And what exactly is a creationist supposed to find? A cambrian rabbit??? Get real! Brian Sykes, a secular Oxford geneticist writing in Nature indicated that according to the rate at which DNA is shown to break down in the laboratory, there should be none left after 10,000 years. Mind you, this was DNA isolated under strict clinical conditions in the lab.

Well, shouldn't that, in the name of science in which you so firmly believe, prove that 80 million year old

DNA cannot be preserved? And should that mean that it would be impossible to revive bacteria after supposedly being burried for 250 million years?

So if secular scientists are finding these kinds of things then what are creationists supposed to do?

And obviously, even trying to convince people who "don't know squat about science" is difficult when they claim that "there simply is no scientific opposition to evolution".

Yeah, sure!!

Hovind did one of two things. Either Hovind is simply too ignorant to know that you cannot date live animals with carbon dating, and thinks that showing carbon dating failing to provide an accurate date on live animals disproves how it is properly done. In which case Hovind is being dishonest about his qualifications to understand and communicate science to students and the public, as he cannot get the most basic fundamentals right (he doesn't understand DNA replication either). Or Hovind knows that you aren't supposed to use carbon dating on live animals, but doesn't care and uses improper carbon dating anyways to discredit proper use of carbon dating. I really don't see a third option here.

Actually you are doing one of two things. Either you listen to what I already have said about this, or you ignore it and reapeat what you already have said, which you cannot back up with any evidence.

[Citizenship]

D-9

....

You seem to have read and responded to an older post I made a day or so ago and missed my latest one... It's an easy thing to do.

I haven't read your latest reply, because it would be tedious to try to reply to things we have already discussed, so please take a look at my latest post and I will wait for you to respond.. in you own time, because understandably this is Christmas and all. So Merry Christmas, I will get back to you later.

[Guest]

Joke? Or Fact?

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

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 4:1-4

~

I don't even know why you try to engage me I just ignore this ignorance. You at is because proof texting with multiple scriptures make you right instead of actually looking stuff and researching and using your brain. This site is pretty much a yes man sit with scripture thrown in to prove the point even when it is wrong and insulting to someone who is trying to have a conversation about science when scripture is not a text book of fact or a science book. No wonder y'all wonder why Christians walk away from the faith. Bye delete my account this is a joke.

Bless You Dear One

And Yes, Yes Please Do Forget Me

But Please, Please Don't Continue To Reject The Christ Of The Bible

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: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:10-14

By Drinking The Corrosive Cocktails Of The Godless Pagan

Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Isaiah 45:9

Proclaiming Them Superior Knowledge

Yea, hath God said, Genesis 3:1(c )

For Sin Will Destroy Your Mind

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. 2 Corinthians 4:3-5

And Ruin All Hope

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. Hebrews 3:12-13

In The Christ

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

Eat

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

~

Believe

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Romans 10:8-11

And Be Blessed Beloved

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 1 Corinthians 12:13

Love, Joe

[Guest]

The point is that their creationism was a product of their time and culture more than anything else.

As I See It, One Reason Most Men Today Could Be

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:13-15

So Ashamed Of The Light, Of Jesus Christ Their Creator Is

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

Realize that the atoms that make up the Earth, and all life contained within - even our very bodies - were fashioned in the heart of stars. Because of this we are connected to each other and all other life biologically, connected to the Earth with all its molecules chemically, and indeed the universe atomically. We are not figuratively, but literally stardust. We are in the universe, part of the universe, and the universe in us. - inspired by quotes of Neil deGrasse Tyson with my own spin

Perhaps They Think It Much Cooler To Be Made Of Fourth-Day Star Dust

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Genesis 1:14-19

Than Of First-Day

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Genesis 1:1-5

Dirt

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7

~

Believe

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

The Bible

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

And 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

In The Jesus

Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

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. Colossians 1:12-17

Of God's Definitive Word

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

And Be Blessed Beloved

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Romans 10:9-11

Love, Joe

~

Merry Christmas

[Guest shiloh357]

I can't deny that there's an unwritten rule that such material is not to be published. But then again, you could say the same thing about astrology unless it is a paper bashing astrology. What I'm getting at is that when the scientific community doesn't publish material on a certain topic like creationism, there are other options to chose from besides overwhelming bias or a massive conspiracy theory. It may just be that it isn't good science.

That makes my point. It's a circular argument. It isn't published because it isn't good science, but how do we know it is isn't good science?? Because it is never published. They burn the candle on both ends. They won't let it get published in peer review because they will not allow creationist matierals to be peer reviewed and when questioned about why creationist matieral is not good science, they claim it is because Creationists don't have any peer reviewed articles. So to say that it is bad science isn't really a very good argument because the very means of determing good science (peer review) is denied to scientists who share a creationist view.

Although creationism isn't exactly sanctioned in peer review, creationists still publish their ideas elsewhere and the famous ones are commented on by other scientists. The bottom line is that scientists have reviewed the arguments of creationism and absolutely no one is impressed except for those with an a priori commitment to creationism.

No, they have not "reviewed" it in the proper forum of a peer reiviewed journal. What you call "review" amounts to nothing but mockery and belittlement and complete and utter denigration of creationists, as if anyone who believes the Bible is nothing more than a stooge and is anything they says is rejected out of hand and is treated as not worth the paper it is written on. That is not reviewing in the proper scientific sense.

You do have creationists with doctorates in many fields, but they are very rare.

That isn't true.

And I think when you look at what they do and what they say, they are either saying something different than standard creationism or are talking outside their field. You have Behe, doctorate in biochem, he doesn't reject evolution completely, from what I understand he thinks that evolution mostly happened but needed a little help here and there to make everything work like in the case of the bacterial flagellum - not random mutation but guided mutations. Then you have Hoyle, PhD astronomer and did good work in his field, but is also known for the tornado-junkyard analogy to evolution, which is simply an ignorant statement on how natural selection works, but he was talking about something completely outside his field of expertise. So how valuable is his analysis which is rejected by those in the field of life sciences?

I can find creationist scientists I don't agree with and I think make some outlandish comments and there have been some like Hovind that I would not give you a wooden nickel for. But they are not typical. There are bad apples in any group. So that line of argumentation is pretty weak. Furthermore you have a whole history of scientists who were Christians whose Chrsitian faith was never an impediment to science. The scientific method was developed by a scientist who was a Christian. The first scientific community, the Royal Society, was started by Christians who were scientists, Galileo, Copernicus, Keplar, Newton, and others were scientists who had a firm belief in God as creator and that belief never impeded their work in their respective fields of research.

[Hawkins]

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?

From my own speculation, people (the atheists) don't know what they are talking about most of the time. They possess a very much mixed concept about what science is, yet they are keen on applying their superficial and even twisted conceptions.

When science is concern, it's 'talking' about something repeatable which humans can do repeatitive observation (or at least theoretically so). Science can be futile and not applicable to something which is not repeatable. History, in nature, happened only once, science thus can be futile and not applicable to history.

For example, when researching into the existence of the grand father of your grand grand father, science can be completely useless, as the evidence of his existence may have gone as a nature of what history is. It by no means says that he never existed (in the contrary he surely existed), it's just that science is completely futile and not applicable in the situation. On the other hand, if one of the unknown member of your ancestors wrote a book about him, then how its content shall be treated?????!!!!!

1) the content must be untrue due to the lack of evidence

2) the content can be true and can be false

Apparantly, 1) isn't true (might not be that apparant to the atheists though). And in case of 2) you need faith to believe that either the content is true or it's false. Science has completely no bearing on this. The atheists however tend to apply 'science' without the awareness of its limitation. It thus becomes their religion, worse still without their own awareness.

The fruit from the Tree of Knowledge that they use to judge what's right and what's wrong (good and evil), however the same day they eat of it the same day they shall surely die (the second death). This prettey mush sums up the situation.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Hawkins