Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[katerinah1947]

Yes and I find that very interesting. I think they know that they are serving God. Still that is just the way God wants it, you have to be all the way in or all the way out. The one thing God does not want is people that are unpredictable. He wants to know what you are going to do. I noticed on here they seem to look for any weakness to test people to see if they really are fully committed to God. It is the dishonest people that are loyal to nothing and no one and not even themselves. The people that no one can trust and no one can rely on. Perhaps God can use them but I do not know what good people are that intend to back stab you whenever they get the chance.

Hi,

On the subject of mean people who have no remorse, which is another way of wording your backstabbers above.

They bring people to God by their lies which cause pain and death (wars caused by lies) thus motivating people to seek what is left after all the cool and good things of this world have been removed from their grasp or holding.

Before, I knew God was real, I was attacked and my daughter was later attacked not by one of those types, but five of those types simultaneously.

As I fought them off, or was going to give in to them, because of their correct position and my errors, or keep on fighting and opposing them, if they were wrong.,

My last three attackers were Jehovah's Witnesses. They decided not to answer my questions. Stuck then, because I had no idea if the Bible was Real or not, and that was their main tool, eventually I took a look at that book, to see if it was fact or fiction.,

10 years later, I had the information, and then dealt with the JW's.

The JW's main contribution to all that work, is they are incredibly good, liars.

Why is that a help?

It's a help, because I had to learn so much, to prove that they were lieing.

And, later God actually stepped in verbally, (The a Holy Spirit), and gave me the final piece, that I needed to understand then.

Look, how much I had to learn.

Maybe, that is the purpose, of what you called back-stabbers. It is to motivate us, through pain, to learn about God, correctly.
O
LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

What I do not understand is that it seems like the more you do to help people the more they try to do you harm in return. As if there is nothing good in them and they can only return evil for good. In the real world people help each other out and do good for each other. At least that was the way I was raised. Yet some people do not seem to have any good to offer anyone.

Hi,

Has this not been covered already. Predators prey. Everyone else is normal.

LOVE,

 

[Michael]

No Michael, nobody "believes' in the Big Bang theory per se. You are mistakenly equating favouring one theory (i.e. a scientific evidenced based explanation) over an alternative one, with 'belief' or faith. 'Belief' is regarding something as true in the absence of evidence.

Well, we're going to have to start by clearly defining terms, because I would define "faith" as regarding something as true in the absence of cause/effect empirical evidence. I would define "belief" as something I hold belief in, like my cellphone, my TV, my computer, my car, gravity, electricity, or something I'd agree with in a general sense.

There is much we don't know about the universe,

Yep, we don't know at least 95 percent of it in fact if you "hold belief" in current astronomy theory.

but there are trails of evidence that lead us to either dead-certain theories (the word theory being used in the proper scientific sense here) or,

The only "dead-certain" theories are empirically demonstrated theories. Anything that shows up in a consumer product falls into that category IMO. The mythical entities of astronomy do not show up in useful consumer goods on store shelves however. In fact Alfven called the mathematics that they apply to the 5 percent of the (plasma) universe that they claim to understand as pure "pseudoscience", at the same conference where he presented his double layer paper which made magnetic reconnection theory obsolete. That's how little the mainstream actually "understands" about our universe. It's pretty much 100 percent ignorance on a stick.

alternatively, plausible explanations.

Well, from my vantage point, virtually *any* purely empirical cosmology theory is immediately better than one that is 95 percent pure placeholder terms for human ignorance combined with 5 percent pseudoscience.

Define "plausible" in terms of empirical physics.

So when a scientifically literate person says that he/she beliefs in the Big Bang, he/she is saying they they find explanation X more compelling than explanation Y.

In other words they "hold the belief" that explanation X is "better than" every other possibility in the universe. It's still holding belief in the "unseen" (in the lab), at least 95 percent of it in the case of astronomy.

That's not the same as blind faith or favouring an explanation because it suits your personality, your upbringing or it conveniently slots-in with your particular bias.

We are all culturally and historically biased by nature, and by region. We all come with biases, and constant programming by the media as well. That's how those biases form.

Do I believe in the Big Bang or Black Holes? Of course not. I've read about them, I can understand some of it, but much of the mathematics and physics goes over my head. But I can accept that they are the best and most widely accepted evidenced based explanations for cosmological phenomena.

Then by definition you do not apply a purely empirical cause/effect standard to the topic of "science", apparently that standard of evidence only applies to the topic of God. Many humans have written about the effects of "God" on their lives, since the dawn of recorded human civilization, but no photon ever claimed that "exotic matter did it". You apparently hold belief in a host of theoretical constructs that you don't even fully understand, nor do the experts, but you simply accept their claims on "faith", apparently faith in a few "scientists". They however are not applying a purely empirical standard to their "science", and even they can't name so much as a single source of dark energy which makes up the vast majority of their theory!

'Belief' is an inappropriate reasoning in relation to natural phenomena.

Er, no. That would be a "erroneous belief". One can also have or hold a "belief" that is accurate as well as hold a belief that is false.

We don't believe or disbelieve in gravity.

We simply experience gravity, even if we aren't sure of it's actual "cause". Some folks "believe" that GR theory "explains" gravity. Some folks "believe" that QM theory is a "better" way to describe gravity. The experience is still "real" even if we don't individually understand it. I think most humans apply that same standard to the topic of God.

Gravity is not a construct or an idea: it's there, period!

Gravity is something that shows up in every lab on Earth, therefore it's not really an "act of faith", it's a belief that enjoys a ton of empirical evidence and humans "experience" it on a daily basis.

Big Bang and Black Holes may turn out to be false leads but through persistent hard work and application of human intelligence, better explanations will one day be found. Great! That's science!

Well they've already been 'found' (over 100 years ago in fact), but science tends to change at a snails pace rather than embrace empirical physics in one big epiphany.

Better than guessing or relying on hearsay, mythology and half-baked ideas from desert dwelling goat herders.

Nobody is suggesting you do that, but how do you know for sure that the same criticism doesn't actually apply to modern day dark sky goat herders? Do you have any cause/effect empirical evidence to support any of their claims, or do you simply hold belief in the idea without really getting into the details? Do they actually understand the nitty gritty details like naming a source of "dark energy"?

If astronomers can hold belief without empirical understanding or empirical evidence, how can you fault any theist for holding belief in God without having empirical cause/effect evidence to support every claim?

In the mean time, we'd do well to avoid broad generalisation, and yes, I can be guilty of them too! I'm happy to be reprimanded for any transgressions.

Nice chatting with you.

You're welcome. Nice chatting with you too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your lack of an empirical cause/effect demonstration of your claim isn't "my" failure, it's yours. I'm simply applying the same empirical standard to all topics, whereas you're only applying a purely empirical cause/effect standard to the topic of God, and nowhere else.

You don't seem to understand. You failed in your claims countless times. You have merely misunderstood rather advanced physics.

They typically do demand an empirical cause/effect demonstration as it relates to spontaneous healing, and various ideas when applied to the topic of God. They generally don't apply that same empirical cause/effect demonstrated standard to any other scientific oriented topic however.

You are being silly. We ask for just a glimmer of evidence for God, none is given. Much higher standards are demanded by scientists for their own work.

That's true of any theoretical construct.

Simply wrong again. You do not even seem to understand what scientific evidence is. You are going the way of creationists.

Ditto as it relates to astronomy.

Come on Mike, a little honesty on your part would be appreciated. I know that you understand this at least just a little bit. You have no excuse for that statement.

Not in my experience. Typically the "evidence" itself is subjective, and begins with an "act of faith" in a presumed "cause", one that often cannot and is not replicated in any lab on Earth.

Mike, if you strive to keep yourself ignorant that is the way that it will seem to anyone. The reason that ideas are accepted is that they are strongly supported by evidence and that projections can be made with the theory. Tell me what these supposed assumptions are and I will probably be able to point out your errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no objective definition for atheism only subjective. It is different for every person. I have never known two atheists that have defined atheism in the same way.

If you talk with enough of them you will find that it is simply a lack of belief in a god. Yes, there is a whole range of beliefs, just as there is a whole range of beliefs in Christianity, from Flat Earther to fully accepting reality.

The problem is that you have been making many false claims about atheists in general. Just because you may know an unhappy atheist it does not mean that all atheists are unhappy. I know unhappy Christians, does that mean all Christians are unhappy?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

God said He created the heavenly bodies on the fourth day. End of story. You think He doesn't mean what He says because scientists teach that it's been around for billions of years. Scientists are not bias-free. Everyone has the same evidence, but worldview shapes how we look at evidence. You think scientists' word is more reliable than God's, or on the same level. It is not and never will be. The science of technology is not the same as the "science" of origins, which is not science at all--really, it is just a matter of faith. Godless scientists like Sagan must believe in millions of years because that somehow makes anything seem plausible and they cannot accept the Creator.

Perhaps you think a man's theory (dispensationalism) is worthy of being held to regardless of its Scriptural basis. Maybe you never studied it yourself, to see if the Scripture really teaches pre-Tribulation rapture or not. I have; it does not. For one example, study of the parable of the wheat and tares in Matthew 13 (which Jesus also explains) should show you that there is no such thing as a pre-Tribulation rapture. True and false (or non) Christians live together until the end. First the wicked destroyed and then the righteous are gathered. But people gather teachers to tell them what they want to hear.

There's no point in us going back and forth anymore.

I would call Dispensationalism doctrine Paul's "A Different Gospel" and have led many astray (Galatians 1:6-9)......

I lean toward the Preterist/Amill camp myself.

Everything you wanted to know about Dispensationalism, but were afraid to ask. And for good reason!

http://graceonlinelibrary.org/category/eschatology/dispensationalism/

.........Dispensationalism has a pervasive influence not only extensively, but also intensively. It is usually the case that those who embrace its teachings as a system are affected in almost every area of their theological thinking.
So pervasive is its effect on those who have become its pupils, that even those who have come to see the error of its basic presuppositions testify that dispensational cobwebs have remained in their thinking for a long time after the initial sweeping took place. My own experience bears witness to the truth of what I say.............

No evaluation of Dispensational Premillennialism may ignore its teaching of a two-phased return of Christ, the first phase of which is commonly known as the rapture. This feature is its most widely known aspect. Popularized by such best-selling books as Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth, the film The Return, and bumper stickers warning others that in the event of the rapture the vehicle will be without driver and possibly passengers — Dispensationalism has enjoyed a large following among conservative Christians, especially in North America..........................

The view that has predominated in Dispensationalism is known as pre-tribulational rapturism. As noted previously, the older classical version of Dispensationalism held that the first phase of Christ’s return, his ‘coming’ or ‘parousia’, would precede a seven-year period of tribulation, and that the second phase of Christ’s return, his ‘revelation’ or ‘appearing’, would introduce the millennium or one-thousand-year reign of Christ on the earth.

The first phase, Christ’s coming, is the rapture1 of 1 Thessalonians 4:17, an event that represents Christ’s coming ‘for’ his saints in contrast to his subsequent return (the second phase) or coming ‘with’ the saints. Though this view has been somewhat modified in more recent Dispensationalism, it remains far and away the most popular view among dispensationalists to this day.
The views known as mid-tribulationism and post-tribulationism, as the terminology suggests, differ as to the timing of the rapture, but have relatively few defenders.2.............................




.

 

[Luke17:37]

I would call Dispensationalism doctrine Paul's "A Different Gospel" and have led many astray (Galatians 1:6-9)......

I lean toward the Preterist/Amill camp myself.

Everything you wanted to know about Dispensationalism, but were afraid to ask. And for good reason!

http://graceonlinelibrary.org/category/eschatology/dispensationalism/

.........Dispensationalism has a pervasive influence not only extensively, but also intensively. It is usually the case that those who embrace its teachings as a system are affected in almost every area of their theological thinking.
So pervasive is its effect on those who have become its pupils, that even those who have come to see the error of its basic presuppositions testify that dispensational cobwebs have remained in their thinking for a long time after the initial sweeping took place. My own experience bears witness to the truth of what I say.............

No evaluation of Dispensational Premillennialism may ignore its teaching of a two-phased return of Christ, the first phase of which is commonly known as the rapture. This feature is its most widely known aspect. Popularized by such best-selling books as Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth, the film The Return, and bumper stickers warning others that in the event of the rapture the vehicle will be without driver and possibly passengers — Dispensationalism has enjoyed a large following among conservative Christians, especially in North America..........................

The view that has predominated in Dispensationalism is known as pre-tribulational rapturism. As noted previously, the older classical version of Dispensationalism held that the first phase of Christ’s return, his ‘coming’ or ‘parousia’, would precede a seven-year period of tribulation, and that the second phase of Christ’s return, his ‘revelation’ or ‘appearing’, would introduce the millennium or one-thousand-year reign of Christ on the earth.

The first phase, Christ’s coming, is the rapture1 of 1 Thessalonians 4:17, an event that represents Christ’s coming ‘for’ his saints in contrast to his subsequent return (the second phase) or coming ‘with’ the saints. Though this view has been somewhat modified in more recent Dispensationalism, it remains far and away the most popular view among dispensationalists to this day.
The views known as mid-tribulationism and post-tribulationism, as the terminology suggests, differ as to the timing of the rapture, but have relatively few defenders.2.............................




.

I wouldn't go so far as to call dispensationalism a false gospel (it has the same gospel, as far as I know), but it's definitely a dangerous false teaching inasmuch as Pre-Tribulation Rapture is a false teaching. People are hiding behind its skirts so they don't have to study the Scriptures for themselves. I think a resolute grip on dispensationalism (pre-Tribulation Rapture) will cause many to be foolish virgins (Matthew 25).

I'm not Amill/Preterist either.

I'm 100% convinced of a Post-Tribulation Resurrection-Gathering of the Church at the second coming of Christ. Yeah, I know this is never going to be popular, because basically that is coming to terms with the possibility of one's own beheading, but that's what I'm convinced the Bible teaches. I want to believe the truth of God's Word and obey it, no matter whether it appeals to my flesh.

 

[Michael]

You don't seem to understand. You failed in your claims countless times. You have merely misunderstood rather advanced physics.

Psst! None of these ideas are technically "my" ideas to start with, and unlike the mainstream dark matter claims, Birkeland's ideas actually work in the lab. This is what a real "experiment" (that actually works) looks like:

FYI, Birkeland also built the first electromagnetic "cannon", a technology we now call "star wars" technology, only he did it 100 years ago.

You are being silly. We ask for just a glimmer of evidence for God, none is given. Much higher standards are demanded by scientists for their own work.

There is certainly more empirical cause/effect evidence to support a completely visible electric "aware" universe than to support your pantheon of invisible stuff.

Simply wrong again. You do not even seem to understand what scientific evidence is. You are going the way of creationists.

That's rather an ironic comment since only YEC and Lambda-CDM require claims of faster than C "expansion".

Come on Mike, a little honesty on your part would be appreciated. I know that you understand this at least just a little bit. You have no excuse for that statement.

If you're going to be a little honest you have exactly *zero* cause/effect empirical evidence to support any of your claims. They are all based entirely upon affirming the consequent fallacies with invisible entities. When the belief system is 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance, what good is it?

Mike, if you strive to keep yourself ignorant that is the way that it will seem to anyone. The reason that ideas are accepted is that they are strongly supported by evidence and that projections can be made with the theory.

Yet all those so called "projections" (I think you meant "predictions") turned out to all fail in the lab with respect to cold dark matter claims, and their predictions about SN1A all being "Standard candles"' also failed larger SN1A studies.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

Tell me what these supposed assumptions are and I will probably be able to point out your errors.

Just start with "Space expansion" and explain why I should trust your explanation of photon redshift rather than Hubble?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Psst! None of these ideas are technically "my" ideas to start with, and unlike the mainstream dark matter claims, Birkeland's ideas actually work in the lab. This is what a real "experiment" (that actually works) looks like:

FYI, Birkeland also built the first electromagnetic "cannon", a technology we now call "star wars" technology, only he did it 100 years ago.

Yes, we are well aware of how the EU nuts try to hijack real physics.

There is certainly more empirical cause/effect evidence to support a completely visible electric "aware" universe than to support your pantheon of invisible stuff.

The fact that your ideas fail peer review tell us that that is not the case.

That's rather an ironic comment since only YEC and Lambda-CDM require claims of faster than C "expansion".

Sorry, but there claims are totally different. And you do not seem to understand what expansion is. I know that this is beyond justa's ability to understand but you do know that expansion does not give stars actual velocity, don't you?

If you're going to be a little honest you have exactly *zero* cause/effect empirical evidence to support any of your claims. They are all based entirely upon affirming the consequent fallacies with invisible entities. When the belief system is 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance, what good is it?

Nope, you are wrong again. But then your ignorance of physics has been well proven over the years. I do not care to go over this again, but if you can show that essential saltes is wrong the I will believe you. Though he may have put you on ignore for your inability to support your claims.

Yet all those so called "projections" (I think you meant "predictions") turned out to all fail in the lab with respect to cold dark matter claims, and their predictions about SN1A all being "Standard candles"' also failed larger SN1A studies.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

Wrong. They simply have not been able to observe dark matter in the lab yet. Please don't link to moron sites such as "thuderbolts" is you want to be taken seriously.

Just start with "Space expansion" and explain why I should trust your explanation of photon redshift rather than Hubble?

You mean physicists explanation. Hubble was into this science fairly early. It seems that he did not understand General Relativity. I know that I don't understand General Relativity. But those that do can show that they math tell us that the universe is expanding. Since the latest discovery that we are now discussing was the last prediction of GR that Einstein had made that had not been observed yet there is no doubt that the theory is well supported. Evidence for GR is evidence for expansion. All that Hubble had was arguments from ignorance, which is all that you have when you oppose this concept. Though Hubble is well respected for his work his flaws are recognized too.

 

[Michael]

Yes, we are well aware of how the EU nuts try to hijack real physics.

LOL! You're ignoring physics that actually works in a lab in favor of mythical physics that has failed every 'test' it's been put to in a lab to date! Wow!

The fact that your ideas fail peer review tell us that that is not the case.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0509/0509611.pdf
Psst: Lerner's work has been published, Peratt's work has been published and Alfven's published hundreds of papers. Birkeland published a whole volume and several papers.

You'll note it was Guth and his Bicep2 Nobel Prize claims that failed the peer review process.

Sorry, but there claims are totally different. And you do not seem to understand what expansion is. I know that this is beyond justa's ability to understand but you do know that expansion does not give stars actual velocity, don't you?

Yes, I know that you're peddling a mythical "space expansion" claim that defies empirical laboratory support in terms of cause/effects on real photons in real lab experiments.

Nope, you are wrong again. But then your ignorance of physics has been well proven over the years. I do not care to go over this again, but if you can show that essential saltes is wrong the I will believe you. Though he may have put you on ignore for your inability to support your claims.

Technically they aren't "my" claims to support in real empirical cause/effect experiments, they are yours to support, and you can't. One simply has to "have faith" that space does magical expansion tricks somewhere out there, but not in any lab on Earth.

Wrong. They simply have not been able to observe dark matter in the lab yet. Please don't link to moron sites such as "thuderbolts" is you want to be taken seriously.

That link has other links to plenty of published *failures* at LUX, PandaX, LHC, etc.

You mean physicists explanation. Hubble was into this science fairly early. It seems that he did not understand General Relativity.

Ultimately it's not a question directly related to GR in the first place, it's directly related to the actual cause of photon redshift. I have no idea how you know what Hubble did or didn't know about GR. Care to enlighten us?

I know that I don't understand General Relativity.

Apparently you're sure that limitation applies to everyone else including Hubble, but I have no idea how or why you come to that conclusion. Lerner even used GR theory to make his case and it's exactly the same case Hubble made.

But those that do can show that they math tell us that the universe is expanding.

They simply "cheat" GR by introducing an "optional" component that isn't even a "requirement" in GR theory to start with. The compound the problem too by introducing magic energy into the same set of formulas, and again it's an *optional* decision to begin with. That demonstrates absolutely nothing with respect to empirically demonstrating that space expansion is an actual "cause" of photon redshift in a real experiment.

Since the latest discovery that we are now discussing was the last prediction of GR that Einstein had made that had not been observed yet there is no doubt that the theory is well supported.

Actually I agree that GR is well supported, but that does absolutely nothing to support Lambda-CDM, dark energy, dark matter, or inflation. You're adding things *into* the basic GR concept without demonstrating any of it or the need for any of it.

Evidence for GR is evidence for expansion.

Nope. Einstein himself used GR to predict/explain a "static" universe. It can also be used to describe a contracting universe. GR theory does not require expansion.

All that Hubble had was arguments from ignorance,

No, actually he had "direct experience" with the observation which you claim supports expansion, and which Hubble himself rejected for virtually the same reason that Lerner rejects the claim.

which is all that you have when you oppose this concept.

Actually no, I also have peer reviewed papers up the wazoo. I also have empirical physics on my side including many types of inelastic scattering.

Though Hubble is well respected for his work his flaws are recognized too.

You've get to show he had any flaws in his work. You're just sort of handwaving wildly and hoping nobody notices that you've yet to produce a single specific flaw in his published body of work. I noticed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL! You're ignoring physics that actually works in a lab in favor of mythical physics that has failed every 'test' it's been put to in a lab to date! Wow!

Don't be foolish. I am not ignoring any physics done in the lab. And you are amazingly ignorant since the standard model has not failed all tests. In fact it has not failed any. You don't even seem to know what failing a test is in physics.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0509/0509611.pdf
Psst: Lerner's work has been published, Peratt's work has been published and Alfven's published hundreds of papers. Birkeland published a whole volume and several papers.

You'll note it was Guth and his Bicep2 Nobel Prize claims that failed the peer review process.

Sorry by you are simply wrong again, you don't seem to know what failure is in physics. I tell you what Mike, when you are ready to start over again and actually learn physics we can discuss this. Otherwise I will simply ignore you as essential saltes does. You sadly have a high school level of physics understanding at best.

Edit: You have so many errors in this post that I am demoting you. If you want to discuss physics you need to bring up one point at a time. For example you were totally wrong about Einstein and what GR tells us about the universe. The work of Hubble and Lemaitre were enough to make Einstein realize that he was wrong in entering a fudge factor into GR, which he did because it predicts an expanding universe. He tried to convince Hubble that he was wrong about thinking that the distant galaxies had actual velocity. He knew that red shift was due to the universe expanding and not velocity. That is how expansion faster than the speed of light is possible.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If you talk with enough of them you will find that it is simply a lack of belief in a god.

So is everyone born an atheist due to lack of understanding and knowledge or do people become Atheist either from accepting or rejecting what they have been taught by others?

 

[joshua 1 9]

The problem is that you have been making many false claims about atheists in general. Just because you may know an unhappy atheist it does not mean that all atheists are unhappy. I know unhappy Christians, does that mean all Christians are unhappy?

That is a catch 22. The only way to be happy is to follow the teaching of the Bible. Often you hear atheists say they follow the teaching of the Bible better then Christians do, only they claim not to believe in God. Still they do what the Bible says to do and they reap the benefits of that, even if they do not profess to believe in God. If you want to prove the Bible true then do what the Bibles says to do and then see if you get the results that the Bible says you will get. So we can test the word of God to see if God is true or not. Simply do what God tells us to do. Live our life the way He tells us to live our life.

 

[katerinah1947]

You don't seem to understand. You failed in your claims countless times. You have merely misunderstood rather advanced physics.



You are being silly. We ask for just a glimmer of evidence for God, none is given. Much higher standards are demanded by scientists for their own work.



Simply wrong again. You do not even seem to understand what scientific evidence is. You are going the way of creationists.



Come on Mike, a little honesty on your part would be appreciated. I know that you understand this at least just a little bit. You have no excuse for that statement.




Mike, if you strive to keep yourself ignorant that is the way that it will seem to anyone. The reason that ideas are accepted is that they are strongly supported by evidence and that projections can be made with the theory. Tell me what these supposed assumptions are and I will probably be able to point out your errors.

Hi,

And I forgot about projections.

This is not for you on this point, Oregon-And-Java-Plate-Kid, (two subduction zones) .

Projections are so common, in science, that the words are not there, for those actions.

Projections.

Neither are words there for any theories of problem solving.

So, this word startled me into the reality, that even in our own personal designs of experiments, Projections are used, in the: "If This is True, Then That Should Be True" Way.

When that "supposedly accidental" work was done on The Bible, resulting in The Controlled Experiments being done, cinching for all time that The Bible is Real, Projections were used, but so normal in my trade, that I didn't even know what I was doing with words then. And, I am a cookie-cutter scientist, meaning that everyone else worked the way I did also.

This is not about me though, it is about Projections are a part of Science, and Science is needed on the Bible.

Science corrected, not the Bible, but interpretations.

Science corrected, not the Doctors, but the interpretations.

In the former, Science, corrected not only that it is the earth that moves, not the sun around the earth, but the earth around the sun, it also corrected The Council of Trent's understanding of The Bible, in that they are not infallible, Biblically, as The Council of Trent said they were.

Science in medicine really took off with Genetics. Adding Science to Medicine, took evil spirits out as the main cause of illness.

Science needs to be in Religion, on an Absolutely Equal Position as Biblical Scholars. Today, the number of Scientists Trained in Religion is almost non existent.

Both science and religion suffer from that, science not being allowed into religion.

Making a Projection as to why that is the case, Galileo and even Newton may tell us something on that.

From a science point of view, Galileo was a cookie-cutter scientist.

That is all he ever was.

Look at what happened to him.

Newton it is said, delayed his work, in fear of being treated horribly also for science.

Galileo, was a Doctor of The Church, without trying to be one.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

That is a catch 22. The only way to be happy is to follow the teaching of the Bible. Often you hear atheists say they follow the teaching of the Bible better then Christians do, only they claim not to believe in God. Still they do what the Bible says to do and they reap the benefits of that, even if they do not profess to believe in God. If you want to prove the Bible true then do what the Bibles says to do and then see if you get the results that the Bible says you will get. So we can test the word of God to see if God is true or not. Simply do what God tells us to do. Live our life the way He tells us to live our life.

Hi,

Some Atheists are following The Bible.

Your testing statements are true from my experience and observations, almost.,

Testing of God, has very very very specific rules.


I propose to you, that this might be true, for all non Christians:

1.)Anyone who loves, is following the Bible, the Old Testament.

2.)Anyone who wants life to continue is following The New Testament.

Atheists love. Some Atheists want their relatives and loved ones to not really be dead, even though they had an earthly death. And, some Atheists even want to live forever.

Yes Joshua, I can't shut up about the Reality of God. Neither it seems can you.

The status of Atheists is not known to me.

My wishes on the status of Atheists, that is known to me.

It is that they too who love are loved by God.

To you and me. Do we not have a phrase? He who abides in Love abides in God and God in Him.

Not doing it, my way.
Not doing it, your way.
Not doing it any earthlings way.

Is that not what Jesus was telling us to correct? Did He not say in Mark 9:38-42, to not get overly stressed about the details?

If God is for them, like with God being with the Gentiles, and Peter changing his ways, cannot too, we be for them?

LOVE,

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hi,

And I forgot about projections.

This is not for you on this point, Oregon-And-Java-Plate-Kid, (two subduction zones) .

Projections are so common, in science, that the words are not there, for those actions.

Projections.

Neither are words there for any theories of problem solving.

So, this word startled me into the reality, that even in our own personal designs of experiments, Projections are used, in the: "If This is True, Then That Should Be True" Way.

When that "supposedly accidental" work was done on The Bible, resulting in The Controlled Experiments being done, cinching for all time that The Bible is Real, Projections were used, but so normal in my trade, that I didn't even know what I was doing with words then. And, I am a cookie-cutter scientist, meaning that everyone else worked the way I did also.

This is not about me though, it is about Projections are a part of Science, and Science is needed on the Bible.

Science corrected, not the Bible, but interpretations.

Science corrected, not the Doctors, but the interpretations.

In the former, Science, corrected not only that it is the earth that moves, not the sun around the earth, but the earth around the sun, it also corrected The Council of Trent's understanding of The Bible, in that they are not infallible, Biblically, as The Council of Trent said they were.

Science in medicine really took off with Genetics. Adding Science to Medicine, took evil spirits out as the main cause of illness.

Science needs to be in Religion, on an Absolutely Equal Position as Biblical Scholars. Today, the number of Scientists Trained in Religion is almost non existent.

Both science and religion suffer from that, science not being allowed into religion.

Making a Projection as to why that is the case, Galileo and even Newton may tell us something on that.

From a science point of view, Galileo was a cookie-cutter scientist.

That is all he ever was.

Look at what happened to him.

Newton it is said, delayed his work, in fear of being treated horribly also for science.

Galileo, was a Doctor of The Church, without trying to be one.

LOVE,

What is Roman Catholicism stance on Galileo today compared with the Protestant and EOC views of today? Had the RCC changed it's view about him presently? Thanks

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/reopening-the-case-against-galileo.7895176/
Reopening the case against Galileo

Astropolis said: ↑
The point is that the attack on Galileo was conducted by people who completely sincerely believed that scripture commanded them to believe in a geocentric universe.

You should actually do some study on the actual reasons that Galileo was opposed by the Catholic Church.
It was due as much to political concerns and personality conflicts with Galileo as it was the science, which is exactly the same situation today. Any questioning of accepted scientific dogma is attacked for all of the same political reasons that Galileo was attacked. It is amazing to me that those who do the attacking don't see the resemblance.

Here's a pretty good article that explains the Catholic Churches side of things http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy. It does a pretty good job but the key thing in it is that many of the Jesuits agreed with Galilleo.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So is everyone born an atheist due to lack of understanding and knowledge or do people become Atheist either from accepting or rejecting what they have been taught by others?

Yes, people tend to "born" atheist. But that is not due to "lack of understanding". People who are born into a religious house usually have religion foisted upon them. They become atheists when they have a better understanding of the religion that they had placed upon them by their parents. Understanding a religion is the fastest way to atheism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is a catch 22. The only way to be happy is to follow the teaching of the Bible. Often you hear atheists say they follow the teaching of the Bible better then Christians do, only they claim not to believe in God. Still they do what the Bible says to do and they reap the benefits of that, even if they do not profess to believe in God. If you want to prove the Bible true then do what the Bibles says to do and then see if you get the results that the Bible says you will get. So we can test the word of God to see if God is true or not. Simply do what God tells us to do. Live our life the way He tells us to live our life.

e

That is simply not true. You have bought into Christian propaganda. And yes, when tested it has been shown that the average atheist has a better understanding of the Bible than the average Christian. They do not "do what the Bible says to do" they do what they know to be right regardless of what the Bible says. In fact if you did what the Bible says you would be arrested, especially the Old Testament. Atheists do what is right because they understand right from wrong and they know that it is usually better to "do right". But this is not the part of the forum for this. I was simply trying to correct some of your grosser errors about atheism.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yes, people tend to "born" atheist. But that is not due to "lack of understanding". People who are born into a religious house usually have religion foisted upon them. They become atheists when they have a better understanding of the religion that they had placed upon them by their parents.
Understanding a religion is the fastest way to atheism.

Hmmm, good point.

............................

e

That is simply not true. You have bought into Christian propaganda. And yes, when tested it has been shown that the average atheist has a better understanding of the Bible than the average Christian. They do not "do what the Bible says to do" they do what they know to be right regardless of what the Bible says. In fact if you did what the Bible says you would be arrested, especially the Old Testament.
Atheists do what is right because they understand right from wrong and they know that it is usually better to "do right". But this is not the part of the forum for this. I was simply trying to correct some of your grosser errors about atheism.

Good post and I agree.......

Isaiah !
16 Wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds out of my sight;
stop doing wrong.
17 Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed [a]
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.
18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,”
says the Lord.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient,
you will eat the good things of the land;
20 but if you resist and rebel,
you will be devoured by the sword.”
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.




.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi,

And I forgot about projections.

This is not for you on this point, Oregon-And-Java-Plate-Kid, (two subduction zones) .

Projections are so common, in science, that the words are not there, for those actions.

Projections.

Actually one can make predictions or projections with a scientific theory and those are one way of testing a theory. A theory will make certain predictions, sometime they are intended and sometimes they are not. Creationists no longer make hypotheses (the forerunners of theory) because others would find predictions that their hypotheses made, test them, and refute them. Creation science is a joke because they do not do any actual science these days.

Neither are words there for any theories of problem solving.

That is because that would be a methodology and not a theory usually.

So, this word startled me into the reality, that even in our own personal designs of experiments, Projections are used, in the: "If This is True, Then That Should Be True" Way.

When that "supposedly accidental" work was done on The Bible, resulting in The Controlled Experiments being done, cinching for all time that The Bible is Real, Projections were used, but so normal in my trade, that I didn't even know what I was doing with words then. And, I am a cookie-cutter scientist, meaning that everyone else worked the way I did also.

When has the Bible ever been tested in a meaningful way? I have heard Christians claims that you can't. If that could be done then you might have a real reason for your belief, but I have never seen this.

This is not about me though, it is about Projections are a part of Science, and Science is needed on the Bible.

Science corrected, not the Bible, but interpretations.

Science corrected, not the Doctors, but the interpretations.

In the former, Science, corrected not only that it is the earth that moves, not the sun around the earth, but the earth around the sun, it also corrected The Council of Trent's understanding of The Bible, in that they are not infallible, Biblically, as The Council of Trent said they were.

Science in medicine really took off with Genetics. Adding Science to Medicine, took evil spirits out as the main cause of illness.

Science needs to be in Religion, on an Absolutely Equal Position as Biblical Scholars. Today, the number of Scientists Trained in Religion is almost non existent.

Both science and religion suffer from that, science not being allowed into religion.

This rant of yours is rather disorderly. Are you claiming now that the Bible needs to be scientifically tested? Christians will not stand for that.

Making a Projection as to why that is the case, Galileo and even Newton may tell us something on that.

From a science point of view, Galileo was a cookie-cutter scientist.

That is all he ever was.

Look at what happened to him.

Newton it is said, delayed his work, in fear of being treated horribly also for science.

Galileo, was a Doctor of The Church, without trying to be one.

LOVE,

Let me ask a simple question, are you saying that the Bible should be tested scientifically? I do not think believers will allow that. Or if you did they would simply not believe your results.