Barabbas Posted December 15, 2012 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 75 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 15, 2012 ...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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizenship Posted December 15, 2012 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 53 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 24 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/26/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 15, 2012 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"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barabbas Posted December 16, 2012 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 75 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 16, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizenship Posted December 16, 2012 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 53 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 24 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/26/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 16, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizenship Posted December 16, 2012 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 53 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 24 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/26/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 16, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizenship Posted December 16, 2012 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 53 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 24 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/26/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 16, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas t Posted December 16, 2012 Group: Senior Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 46 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 944 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 170 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/05/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/20/1980 Share Posted December 16, 2012 ...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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barabbas Posted December 16, 2012 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 75 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 16, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizenship Posted December 16, 2012 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 53 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 24 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/26/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 16, 2012 (edited) 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 December 16, 2012 by Citizenship Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts