26% in U.S. do not know Earth goes around the Sun

[TheBear]

Oh my.

National Science Foundation surveys U.S. knowledge - UPI.com

Compared to Russia's 32% who believe the same thing.

Oh my, indeed.

Third of Russians think sun spins round Earth? | Reuters

 

[RDKirk]

Not true at all. Science would have to understand what it was seeing in creation for that to be true. Man sees, not science. We see enough that we can know there was a creation. That does not mean changes of great scope did not occur after creation, such as the flood...uplifting..etc etc. Science tries to explain the changes in a godless way, to the point of not including creation!!! That sure does not mean science is what the verse was talking about at all. On the contrary. Absolutely not the spirit of the text.

"Science" is not a judging being that can "understand what it is seeing." "Science" does not "explain." "Science" is merely a systematic methodology of nature observation.

Most of the early Greek scientists were theists, and a minority segment of those Greek scientists concluded that one supreme Creator exists based on their scientific observations of the constancy and predictability of the heavens. They further concluded that this one supreme Creator was perfectly virtuous, again based on their scientific observation of the heavens. But they declared that beyond his existence and his basic character, there was nothing else they could know about that one supreme creator.

Paul spoke of those ancient Greek monotheists, quoted one of them, declared that the one supreme creator they discovered from creation was, in fact, the true God.

Now, scripture already declares that God's existence is visible in His creation (Psalm 19), and Paul declares that God deliberately makes His presence known in creation specifically so that people will observe Him in creation, seek Him, and possibly find him.

The fact that those ancient Greeks--who Paul clearly knew about--actually proved out Psalm 19 gives him the ammunition to declare in Romans 1 that those who observe creation and come to a non-theistic conclusion cannot escape fault, because it was proven that God is discoverable in creation even without scripture.

The early scientists of the Christian era were still Christian. Galileo was a Christian. Newton was a Christian. Leeuwenhoek was a Christian. There is nothing about a "systematic methodology of nature observation" that leads men away from God, but the intention of men to disavow God even in the face of the facts they see in nature.

 

[lesliedellow]

There isn't, when they look to origins. The only purpose is to cast doubt on God's word.

There really is no polite word for the nonsense you wrote. Even you can't truly truly believe that a Baptist like Francis Collins is trying to rubbish the Bible?

Or is your mind so tightly closed that you would believe even that?

I think my interaction with a brick wall ends here.

 

[JacobLaw]

Scientific conclusions is a matter of what authority you choose to except for most people: because they neither have the time or ability to know for themselves.
Therefore in reality you must choose who you are going to believe went two opposite conclusion are promoted.
And again it is the same age old decision, God or Man.
Unfortunately some try to walk the fence line and chose the fate of the lukewarm.

 

[TheBear]

Scientific conclusions is a matter of what authority you choose to except[sic] for most people because they neither have the time or ability to know for themselves.

In the realm of religion, submitting to an absolute and infallible authority figure is the norm. There are no absolute and infallible authority figures in science.

IOW - just because you personally submit to an absolute and infallible authority figure, doesn't mean everyone does.

 

[dad]

There really is no polite word for the nonsense you wrote. Even you can't truly truly believe that a Baptist like Francis Collins is trying to rubbish the Bible?

Or is your mind so tightly closed that you would believe even that?

I think my interaction with a brick wall ends here.

I do not care who believes God did not really create like He said. Or whether you take a hike.

 

[dad]

"Science" is not a judging being that can "understand what it is seeing." "Science" does not "explain." "Science" is merely a systematic methodology of nature observation.

A methodology that has nothing but the physical, and wallows in glee in that limitation.

Most of the early Greek scientists were theists, and a minority segment of those Greek scientists concluded that one supreme Creator exists based on their scientific observations of the constancy and predictability of the heavens. They further concluded that this one supreme Creator was perfectly virtuous, again based on their scientific observation of the heavens. But they declared that beyond his existence and his basic character, there was nothing else they could know about that one supreme creator.

Great. Maybe they ought to read His word, and stop stabbing in the dark, going on dead end roads.

Paul spoke of those ancient Greek monotheists, quoted one of them, declared that the one supreme creator they discovered from creation was, in fact, the true God.

Right, and we could say the Great Spirit of the native Americans is also the true God..etc. Neither of those statements means that either rest of the claims of either the natives of the scientific Greeks was right!

Now, scripture already declares that God's existence is visible in His creation (Psalm 19), and Paul declares that God deliberately makes His presence known in creation specifically so that people will observe Him in creation, seek Him, and possibly find him.

Correct. That does not give man license to interpret nature with a godless philosophy. It just means that what we see is from God.

The fact that those ancient Greeks--who Paul clearly knew about--actually proved out Psalm 19 gives him the ammunition to declare in Romans 1 that those who observe creation and come to a non-theistic conclusion cannot escape fault, because it was proven that God is discoverable in creation even without scripture.

You are reading too much into what Paul said and meant. I do not believe he meant that the Greeks had it all right and 'proved' Psalm 19!

The early scientists of the Christian era were still Christian. Galileo was a Christian. Newton was a Christian. Leeuwenhoek was a Christian. There is nothing about a "systematic methodology of nature observation" that leads men away from God, but the intention of men to disavow God even in the face of the facts they see in nature.

Yet science does diss God and His creation and word in their godless philosophy and claims, and methodology. In no way are they to be trusted interpreting the created universe we see! They look at creation, which ought to prove God exists to them, and zealously omit Him and all things spiritual, and His word from it, choosing to interpret it in a demonic way.

Speaking of Romans, it has their number!!

Ro 1:22 -Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 

[lesliedellow]

I do not care who believes God did not really create like He said. Or whether you take a hike.

"Undefeated" he calls himself.

Only in the sense that you can't win an argument with a brick wall, because it has no arguments. Just, "Anybody who disagrees with me is engaged in a wicked conspiracy against the Bible."

 

[bhsmte]

"Undefeated" he calls himself.

Only in the sense that you can't win an argument with a brick wall, because it has no arguments. Just, "Anybody who disagrees with me is engaged in a wicked conspiracy against the Bible."

Hey, whatever it takes, right?

 

[Mr Clean]

Define scientific? Was it scientific to have an ax handle float in water, or man walk on water? Was it scientific for God to send fire to burn the wet log for Elijah in an observed test? Was it scientific for Christ to rise from the dead? Man's so called science is so small, that real science in action is not comprehended or comprehensible by it!!!!

There is no proof that any man has ever walked on water. There is no proof that Elijah existed or that a god sent fire to burn a wet log for him. There is no proof that someone named Jesus ever rose from the dead.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no proof that any man has ever walked on water. There is no proof that Elijah existed or that a god sent fire to burn a wet log for him. There is no proof that someone named Jesus ever rose from the dead.

Sounds like you want a whole liquor store full of proof, doesn't it?

 

[Mr Clean]

Yes.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness -- 2 Timothy 3

Not in astronomy or archeology or medicine or physics or even mathematics. In righteousness, or in other words, moral philosophy.

Now, if someone can find a specific passage that says just as explicitly that the purpose of scripture is to be a textbook on physical properties of creation, I'll accept it.

Rather, we can gather from Romans 1 and Acts 17 that God declares science reliable in revealing His presence even in the absence of scripture. If the data derived from science were unreliable, Romans 1 and Acts 17 would be lies. Scientific data is reliable, although the conclusions men choose to draw from it may be false.

I have a book that says that if I let a cat with a hat into my house, he will make a mess out of it. That book also makes no actual claims about the reliability of science, but I am also going to claim it does (as you do with Romans and Acts) because if I interpret it vaguely enough I can make it mean almost anything...

 

[lesliedellow]

Originally Posted by dad

Define scientific? Was it scientific to have an ax handle float in water, or man walk on water? Was it scientific for God to send fire to burn the wet log for Elijah in an observed test? Was it scientific for Christ to rise from the dead? Man's so called science is so small, that real science in action is not comprehended or comprehensible by it!!!!
​

There is no proof that any man has ever walked on water. There is no proof that Elijah existed or that a god sent fire to burn a wet log for him. There is no proof that someone named Jesus ever rose from the dead.
There is no proof that any man has ever walked on water. There is no proof that Elijah existed or that a god sent fire to burn a wet log for him. There is no proof that someone named Jesus ever rose from the dead.

The thing which dad either can't get his head around, or doesn't want to get his head around, is that even if those things happened (and I believe that at least one of them did), one off miraculous events are not something which science can investigate.

 

[JacobLaw]

There is no proof that any man has ever walked on water. There is no proof that Elijah existed or that a god sent fire to burn a wet log for him. There is no proof that someone named Jesus ever rose from the dead.

Really where have you been living under a rock, every heard of the bible?

O yea you probably don't think it is proof, better think twice you may not be a smart as you think you are.

 

[JacobLaw]

In the realm of religion, submitting to an absolute and infallible authority figure is the norm. There are no absolute and infallible authority figures in science.

IOW - just because you personally submit to an absolute and infallible authority figure, doesn't mean everyone does.

Everybody got to serve someone; the authority you submit to is the truth if you don't you are submitting to a lie.
One way or the other you need to rightly divide the word of truth from versions of it.

Don't you agree?

 

[Mr Clean]

"Undefeated" he calls himself.

Only in the sense that you can't win an argument with a brick wall, because it has no arguments. Just, "Anybody who disagrees with me is engaged in a wicked conspiracy against the Bible."

Leslie - You did a nice job orating yourself in this thread. Just thought you should know that.

On another note, the only thing I would comment on is that science does care about theology when theology makes specific claims about things, like creations stories and mythical worldwide floods. Since believers make a LOT of claims about things, science seems to be constantly crossing paths with religion at least indirectly...

 

[Mr Clean]

Sounds like you want a whole liquor store full of proof, doesn't it?

AV - you are the one that said in another thread that you won't believe in evolution no matter how much proof is provided, so your sudden interest in the amount of proof needed in a discussion is a rather sudden turn of events...

 

[bhsmte]

Really where have you been living under a rock, every heard of the bible?

O yea you probably don't think it is proof, better think twice you may not be a smart as you think you are.

What some unknown authors wrote in a book does not = proof, sorry.

You can believe it on faith, no problem with that.

 

[Mr Clean]

The thing which dad either can't get his head around, or doesn't want to get his head around, is that even if those things happened (and I believe that at least one of them did), one off miraculous events are not something which science can investigate.

We agree. No one will ever be able to say that any religious claim is false with a confidence rate of 100%. Simply not possible.

 

[Mr Clean]

Really where have you been living under a rock, every heard of the bible?

O yea you probably don't think it is proof, better think twice you may not be a smart as you think you are.

Ever heard of the Vedas? They have all sorts of religious stories in that book too. How about Lord of the Rings? Green Eggs and Ham?

Just because it appears in a book does not make it true, reliable, or accurate.

You have no idea who wrote the ancient texts that comprise your book. History knows that some parts of it were omitted because they were considered redundant or unimportant, so you don't even have the whole thing regardless which of the 20 versions exist out there today. Your entire stance is based on something that falls under the legal definition of hearsay....