When does science help us understand God?

[jerryR34]

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?

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

[jerryR34]

 

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?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

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. 

[jerryR34]

 

  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?

[jerryR34]

 

 

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.

[Guest shiloh357]

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. 

 

[jerryR34]

 

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?

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

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

 

 

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.allaboutscience.org/darwins-theory-of-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.org/wiki/Ad_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-dictionary.org/definition/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.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html#sthash.o45VB9bA.dpuf

 

In Short, Empirical Scientific Evidence Displays 4 Tenets:

 

Observable

Measurable/Testable

Repeatable

Falsifiable

 

Ask to Show ONE Empirical "Scientific" Evidence of Evolution!!    

 

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?? 

 

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!!

 

13^th Century Alchemy has more Respectable Tenets.

 

 

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

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

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.