Science PROVES the BIBLE is True

[Zemira57]

There is an overwhelming amount of rock solid science that proves the Bible is accurate and true. To be sure Science is limited in what Science can do. Still there is Overwhelming Scientific Evidence for the Bible. The problem is people that are perishing do not understand the Bible. They ALWAYS get it wrong. Because they are not born again then they have NOT been renewed in their mind and the CARNAL mind simply is not able to comprehend the Bible. The Bible is SPIRITUAL NOT CARNAL. The fact that they ALWAYS get it wrong is evidence in itself. Because if you are not FOR God then you are AGAINST God. That means you are an enemy of God. I have no idea why people would want to be an enemy of the God that is powerful enough to Create the Whole Universe. That does not even make any reasonable sense. We know that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness". Why would they want to subject themselves to the Wrath of God? For them to say there is NO evidence is simply absurd and that is a sign their mind is not functioning right. The Bible says they have a reprobate mind. We are told that they “suppress the truth by their wickedness.”. So we see that their main objective is to suppress the truth. I am sure they get some sort of reward for their wickedness, "for a season". The Bible says the wages of sin is death. Of course they know they are going to die and perish so that is no surprise to them. Whatever pleasure or advantage they get for their wickedness now is going to be short lived. "Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season." Heb 11:24 Everyone gets to make this choice. God is willing to turn people over to a reprobate mind if that is what they want. He will not make that decision for them. This is a choice that each and every individual must make for themselves. We all make the choice: do we want a mind that is renewed in strength or do we want a reprobate mind? So even I give people huge, Huge, HUGE amounts of scientific evidence they are not able to accept or receive that evidence because of the reprobate mind they have and their propensity to suppress the truth.

Totally agree with your logic!

 

[Gene2memE]

Hmmm... The title of the thread is:

Science PROVES the BIBLE is True.

Then you write:

You can produce science to prove or disprove anything you want to prove or disprove.

Which just about sums up the thoroughness of your arguments and the strength of your position.

 

[Astrophile]

I have thousands of books around here. Which book would you like to study with me to see what the scientific evidence is? Or would you like to look at one of the test books they use at the university. I have a lot of them also.

I admit that I have not specialised in cosmology; I prefer the branches of astronomy where one can actually look at things and that are not too mathematical. However, there are The Big Bang (published 2004) by Simon Singh, The Grand Design (published 2010) by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, and A Universe from Nothing (published 2012) by Lawrence Krauss. I am trying to read How it Began: A Time- Traveller's Guide to the Universe (published 2012) by Chris Impey. There are also plenty of general astronomical books, such as Astronomica (Millennium House, 2007), The Canopus Encyclopedia of Astronomy (published 2004), edited by Paul Murdin and Margaret Penston, and Open University courses in astronomy.

Of course, if you know more about cosmology than I do, and if you can teach me about the science of the origin of the universe, then I shall be glad to learn from you, at least to the limits of my ability.

 

[Astrophile]

If you want to look at time then perhaps we can look at Gerald Schroeder. Or perhaps we can look at what Brian Greene or Brian Cox has to say about it.

From what little I know of Gerald Schroeder, I am not impressed. Besides his odd cosmological and theological ideas, he has made several elementary mistakes in physics, for example saying that kinetic energy is proportional to velocity rather than to (velocity)².

Brian Greene is a superstring theorist, and his work is far over my head. I do not have enough mathematical knowledge to understand him. What puzzles me is that you know enough science to be familiar with Greene's work, and yet you dismiss much of science, and talk about reprobate minds and about scoffers and skeptics who are trying to suppress the truth.

It would help me if you could explain your position in more detail, by saying what parts of science you accept and what you reject, and what your criteria are for acceptance or rejection.

 

[joshua 1 9]

what parts of science you accept and what you reject

I accept true science. A lot of science is bogus. We have a saying: "when the rubber meets the road". The wright brothers were the first to fly because they had the right formula. The people who had the wrong formula could not get their machine to fly. It is as simple as that. That is why I have a lot of confidence in NASA. If NASA does not get it right then people are going to die. So they maintains high standards in everything they do. Airplanes today have two and three back up systems. They are very safe and that means the science behind them is true. Another saying I have is the proof is in the pudding. The proof is in the results that you get. It is easy to have 20 20 hindsight but science has to be able to predict the future and the results.

You have to look at the word true from the perspective of a Carpenter. In construction work a tiny mistake in the beginning can become a huge problem very fast. That is why you have a tolerance because if you get outside of that tolerance your going to have problems. A friend of mine is a journeyman machinist and he makes valves. You have to maintain an exact temperature to maintain quality control. Metal can expand and shrink and you can very easily end up with junk if you do not maintain your tolerance and your quality control. In some cases they have to work within a tolerance of a millionth. It is the same with the entire universe, there is a very little tolerance. People do not realize this because there is no much wobble. But even in all that wobble there is a very strict tolerance and the entire universe is very fine tuned. You do not want to get into quantum physics as to just how fine tuned and interconnected everything is, so I will just leave it at that.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Which just about sums up the thoroughness of your arguments and the strength of your position.

Then I go on to explain what true science is. If you crash and burn then your science was not true because you could not get it to work in the real world.

 

[Astrophile]

I accept true science. A lot of science is bogus.

So what parts of science are true and what parts are bogus, and how do you tell the difference?

For example, if an astronomer uses the observed orbit of a binary star to calculate the masses of the individual stars, is that true science? If an astronomer uses the observed H-R diagram of a star cluster to estimate the age of the cluster, is that true science?

 

[Gene2memE]

Then I go on to explain what true science is.

No you didn't. You poked mild fun at shifting interpretations about the health benefits of alcohol consumption (which is a media and reporting issue, not a scientific one). But nowhere did you explain what "true science" is.

Science is a methodology, a way of determining whether a hypothesis comports with reality. It determines "truth", if by truth you mean "matches reality", but it cannot be true in and of itself.

If you crash and burn then your science was not true because you could not get it to work in the real world.

This sentence is a non sequitur as it stands, but I - sort of - understand your meaning. My translation: "If your scientific findings don't match reality, then they will produce faulty results". Or, more simply, "science that works is true science".

That statement really says nothing about "true science" though, because there is no such thing.

To stress the point, science is a methodology. A process to go through to determine if your thinking about reality is correct or not. It can be performed poorly/incorrectly or with faulty data/processes, and therefore come out with answers that don't match reality. This is why there are principles of falsification and repeatability and peer review exists.
However, there is no "true science". There is just science.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No you didn't.

I just wrote a post on true science. To bad you missed it.

However, there is no "true science".

The Bible says you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. Without truth all you have is bondage.

 

[joshua 1 9]

So what parts of science are true and what parts are bogus, and how do you tell the difference?

I just wrote a whole post on this, so you can read that.

 

[bhsmte]

Hmmm... The title of the thread is:

Science PROVES the BIBLE is True.

Then you write:



Which just about sums up the thoroughness of your arguments and the strength of your position.

What you point out, just continues a long trend.

 

[bhsmte]

I just wrote a whole post on this, so you can read that.

LOL

 

[Gene2memE]

Without truth all you have is bondage.

Depends what you're into.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

What kept the Earth warm before the Sun was created?

Also, you appear to have forgotten that the Earth revolves around the Sun and the solar system revolves around the centre of the Galaxy. Did the Earth stand still in completely empty space for the first four days and then start orbiting the newly-created Sun, with the Sun orbiting the Galactic centre?

No, you appear to not have realised that during the week of creation, God was actively controlling every step of the process, just as He did during the great flood of Noah's day. Do you really think that the awesome power of our Lord Jesus who created ALL things, including the very universe in which we live, could not also bring together the necessary processes to create our tiny planet and all that is on it? Do you really put you own knowledge on a par with that of our Creator?
Isa 55:8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.
Isa 55:9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
And then we have Jesus, speaking to Nicodemus...
Joh 3:11 I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.
Joh 3:12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

 

[Zemira57]

No, you appear to not have realised that during the week of creation, God was actively controlling every step of the process, just as He did during the great flood of Noah's day. Do you really think that the awesome power of our Lord Jesus who created ALL things, including the very universe in which we live, could not also bring together the necessary processes to create our tiny planet and all that is on it? Do you really put you own knowledge on a par with that of our Creator?
Isa 55:8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.
Isa 55:9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
And then we have Jesus, speaking to Nicodemus...
Joh 3:11 I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.
Joh 3:12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

Well said, Not by Chance!!

 

[Loudmouth]

I do not have any confusion with this issue. I do understand that you are having a difficult time understanding the Bible. Perhaps the Bible is a closed book for you. Jesus tells us: "This is why I speak to them in parables: ‘Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.’ In them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled: ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving" Matt13:13.

"For this people’s heart has grown callous;they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes.Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears,understand with their hearts, and turn, and I would heal them.’"

I understand it just fine. It said that Noah's flood covered the highest mountains. You don't have to be a science wiz to understand what this would mean for the rest of the globe.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then I go on to explain what true science is.

True science appears to be what you are left with after you throw out all of the science that contradicts your interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Speedwell]

No, you appear to not have realised that during the week of creation, God was actively controlling every step of the process, just as He did during the great flood of Noah's day.

Sounds like Last Thursdayism to me

Do you really think that the awesome power of our Lord Jesus who created ALL things, including the very universe in which we live, could not also bring together the necessary processes to create our tiny planet and all that is on it? Do you really put you own knowledge on a par with that of our Creator?

It's a question of "how" not "who" and in that respect I put my knowledge at least on a par with people who worship a magical book.
I

 

[Jimmy D]

His whole argument is based on what he calls "reason", yet Darwin does not know what real reason is. All he is doing is creating a myth. In Science it is fine to come up with a theory but then you have the burden to follow though and establish something in the way of evidence. You have to test your theory. Darwin never produced any evidence for his "gradations" theory. He tried to use an appeal to authority by modifying his friend Charles Lyells gradualism theory of geology. Interestingly enough it was the atheist professor from Harvard: Gould that falsified Darwin in this regard. So gradations becomes gradualism and eventually the whole thing is falsified by an atheist promoting punctuated equilibrium.

What you have to remember is that Darwin, Lyell, Gould are all authors trying to sell a book. Their objective is to make money. So of course they have to get people interested in buying their books. Authors talk about how you have to "keep the buzz going". You have to generate excitement and stimulate people. I have actually done a fair amount of selling over the years. No doubt they are all good authors and they all write interesting books. But that don't prove their theory.

Darwin should be highly commended that the "buzz" is still going 100 years later. That is quite an accomplishment. But it seems to be atheists that keep the buzz going in order to promote their atheism. At least here on this forum. In the mean time Moses is still generating a buzz over a book that he wrote 3500 years ago. Not a book that was lost and found. A book that has been on the best seller list from the beginning and continues to be a best seller after 3500 years.

If people do not want to take Moses serious then why should we take Darwin serious? It is pretty absurd that they try to disregard Moses and still they take Darwin serious. Yes this is the great apostasy so we have been told to expect that this was going to happen. If they would first take the Bible serious then they would be in a much better position to promote their Darwinism. When they reject Moses and the Bible they they automatically disqualify themselves.

Oh dear, it's quite unfortunate that your attempts to lecture people about 'science' only further exposes your nonsense.

Darwin doesn't know what real 'reason' is? He's merely an author trying to sell a book? Here's a little quote from your hero Francis Collins.....

Perhaps today’s conflict, which seems particularly intense, is so difficult to understand because, after all, evolution has been very much on the scene for 150 years, and the science that supports Darwin’s theory has gotten stronger and stronger over those decades. That evidence is particularly strong today given the ability to study DNA and to see the way in which it undergirds Darwin’s theory in a marvelously digital fashion. And yet, we have seen an increasing polarization between the scientific and spiritual worldviews, much of it, I think, driven by those who are threatened by the alternatives and who are unwilling to consider the possibility that there might be harmony here.

http://www.pewforum.org/2008/04/17/the-evidence-for-belief-an-interview-with-francis-collins/

What do you think about that, written by a Christian who has actually spent his life studying biology. Does Francis Collins have a reprobate mind? Maybe he's just doesn't have your incredible insight?

It's funny that you also find time to mention Lyell, a devout Christian who struggled to reconcile Darwin's ideas with his faith for a long time. However, even 200 hundred years ago it was obvious, to men like him, that the myths of Genesis were just that and Darwin was right. Note that it was also around this time that the 'Gap Theory' was devised because it was obvious to anyone who could think objectively that a literal reading of Genesis was foolish, obviously false, and denied the observations of the world around us.

This whole thread is a joke, you refuse to acknowledge observed and verifiable facts, contradict yourself time and time again and refuse to a admit whenever you're shown to be wrong.

This quote just about sums it up....

You can produce science to prove or disprove anything you want to prove or disprove.

Is it really not possible that you are mistaken in your ideas and that the bible isn't the infallible, God-penned fount of all truth that you believe it to be? Would that really detract from your faith so much? Rather than idolizing and worshipping a book you could try and concentrate on it's message.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It would help me if you could explain your position in more detail, by saying what parts of science you accept and what you reject, and what your criteria are for acceptance or rejection.

I'm gonna take a wild guess here and put my money on "if it agrees with the bible, it's acceptable, if it doesn't, it isn't."