Are discussions on faith and science two different catagories?

[ubicaritas]

It does Christians no credit to attempt to discredit science. Science confirms its own validity every time I turn on my stereo.

 

[Brightmoon]

It does Christians no credit to attempt to discredit science. Science confirms its own validity every time I turn on my stereo.

. Every time I look at my mostly-related-to- philodendron houseplants , I see evolution ( I’ve got a lot of plants> 60)

 

[AV1611VET]

Are discussions on faith and science two different catagories?

Yes.

Science is myopic: it can't see God or the spiritual realm, but it can see the effects of the spiritual realm (churches, holidays, literature, edifices, knick-knacks).

Here's where I think you're making a mistake:

What do we call the study of the natural world, universe, and life? We call this -science. So here is God telling us we can know He exists through the study of science.

No -- God is telling us we can know He exists through the study of His creation & His word (Psalm 19).

To quote Bruce Lee (eyeroll), "Don't concentrate on the finger [science], or you'll miss all that heavenly glory [creation]."

 

[AV1611VET]

So should we just tear Romans 1:20 from all of our Bibles?

Absolutely not.

It's because of Romans 1:20 that we understand that scientists are without excuse; no matter how many Latin phrases and molecular formulas and technospeak they throw at the Bible.

Actions have equal and opposite reactions, and every tool science uses to smite the Bible comes back on them equally; usually in the form of confusion and mental blocks.

Isaiah 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.

It's interesting that that passage mentions "every tongue that shall rise against thee," in light of scientists' preference for reducing things down to Latin & Greek.

 

[AV1611VET]

If God is truth and science is the study of truth, there should be no conflict.

Yup.

Many people have used the Bible to do cruel and inhumane things.

In spite of the Bible though; not with respect to It.

Many have used science to do cruel and inhumane things.

Yes -- with respect to science; not in spite of it.

One who rightly discerns the truth might gain glory.

 

[AV1611VET]

I always go with scripture. But science helps in some cases to better understand scripture.

Agree.

 

[AV1611VET]

We live in a society that thinks they are wise beyond their intellects.

And that's going to end up sending most of them to Hell.

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

 

[AV1611VET]

It does Christians no credit to attempt to discredit science. Science confirms its own validity every time I turn on my stereo.

That's like ... in 1940 ... saying:

"It does the military no credit to attempt to discredit Germany. I hear Germany confirm its own validity every time I turn on the radio."

They even wore GOTT MIT UNS on their belt buckles, which fools academians to this very day and sets them against us Christians here in the west.

 

[Brightmoon]

That's like ... in 1940 ... saying:

"It does the military no credit to attempt to discredit Germany. I hear Germany confirm its own validity every time I turn on the radio."

They even wore GOTT MIT UNS on their belt buckles, which fools academians to this very day and sets them against us Christians here in the west.

science is a process that determines how natural phenomena works. Your military analogy doesn’t work because you and other creationists just don’t understand that. The processes of science only work on natural phenomena. Religion has dogmas , beliefs you accept without evidence. Science doesn’t. If scientists say that a specific fact is a dogma then they’re joking. Using science facts to make weapons to wage war and to make other things that are used make our lives comfortable and safe is technology. Technology is what we do with science facts

 

[AV1611VET]

science is a process that determines how natural phenomena works. Your military analogy doesn’t work because you and other creationists just don’t understand that.

Then what's military science?

 

[sfs]

Causality is the relationship between causes and effects. It is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

Right. Now where does it mention this "law of causality" that says that every event has a cause?

Since you failed to give an example I can only assume you are referring to things like quantum fluctuations.

No, I'm referring to a wide range of quantum events, like radioactive decay or the decay of a short-lived particle. In QM, there is nothing that determines when the decay will take place or which of multiple decay channels it will occur in.

Did you miss the part about Einstein’s theory predicting otherwise and Hubble observing otherwise?

No, I didn't miss that part, and I'm familiar with their work. As any physicist will tell you, as you extrapolate back toward the Big Bang energy densities become so high that the approximation that is General Relativity breaks down. To describe what happened earlier than that, we need (at least) a quantum theory of gravity, which is something we don't have. So we don't know what actually happened during that epoch. There are various ideas out there from cosmologists, but they're highly speculative.

Can you please give me an example of another planet that has conditions suitable for life where it also exists?

LHS1140b

Well since we only know of one “kind” of life and have no evidence that any other “kind” can exist then isn’t science supposed to be based on observation?

Yes, science is supposed to be based on observation. No, science does not draw broad conclusions about probabilities from a sample of size one.

Not from all I have ever read about it.

“The Earth's magnetic field serves to deflect most of the solar wind, whose charged particles would otherwise strip away the ozone layer that protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation.” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field

Your quotation here has nothing to do with your previous claim, which was about the magnetic field protecting the Earth from cosmic radiation. Are you withdrawing that claim? Lack of ozone would make land life more difficult, but life did appear on Earth long before there was significant free oxygen (including ozone) in the atmosphere.

Can you support this for me please?

Geological history of oxygen

https://www.reference.com/geography/land-water-ratio-earth-ab8815afa863586f

Thanks, but I know what a ratio is. I want to know what's special about Earth's ratio.

Almost all single celled organisms have a special DNA called plasmids that is absent in almost all multi-celled organisms.

But one can study mutations in non-plasmid DNA in single-celled organisms, so why ignore the main laboratory target for studying mutations? Malaria parasites, for example, frequently produce copies of var genes that then mutate, which are then deployed by the parasite to evade the host immune system.

Therefore we would have to have an example of an observed random mutation adding new and beneficial information (gene increasing) to the genome of a MULTI-celled organism,

Duplication of amylase genes in humans who have a starchy diet. Duplication of the sun gene in domesticated tomatoes, with the new copy differently regulated and yielding a major morphological change to the tomato.

 

[BradB]

OP = opening post

If one can believe in a supernatural entity that one cannot observe or measure and believe that this entity was uncreated and has existed forever, then why does the natural universe have to have a first cause? I see no logical basis for the first and not the second.

Umm...cuz the math in Einstein's TGR predicted the expansion of the universe and Hubble's observations confirmed it? The logical conclusion based on these and all other observable facts tell us the universe had a beginning and therefore is not eternal. Unless of course you have some other observable facts I may not be aware of?

The singularity of the Big Bang Theory might be the instant of creation or it might have to do with the collapse of a previous universe resulting in the formation of a new one.

Your talking about the oscillating universe theory. The problem is the "observable" law of thermodynamics. Such an oscillating universe would have died a heat death long ago.

As a Christian I do not regard faith as an unquestioning belief in a set of propositions formed several thousand years ago. To me, faith is a trust in the ultimate goodness of God.

Yes that is very commendable friend. Trust in God and His promises is indeed the Biblical definition of what faith is. The point I am making here is that this kind of trust doesn't just appear out of nowhere like Captain Kirk on a transporter. Did you ever notice how many times Jesus was upset by peoples lack of faith? This tells us that we have a lot to do with building our own faith up. As I pointed out, Hebrews 11:6 tells us that the first step is just to believe that God exists. You don't just wake up one morning and decide to start believing in God. You have to see reasons to believe He is. God tells us the biggest reasons of all can be seen in studying what He made (science). After that we learn how God has been faithful to keep His promises in the past through studying His word. This builds our own trust in the God we have come to believe in. This builds our faith.

 

[BradB]

It does Christians no credit to attempt to discredit science. Science confirms its own validity every time I turn on my stereo.

Who's trying to discredit science? I love science. It points me to the Creator of it all.

 

[BradB]

Yes.

Science is myopic: it can't see God or the spiritual realm, but it can see the effects of the spiritual realm (churches, holidays, literature, edifices, knick-knacks).

Here's where I think you're making a mistake:

No -- God is telling us we can know He exists through the study of His creation & His word (Psalm 19).

To quote Bruce Lee (eyeroll), "Don't concentrate on the finger [science], or you'll miss all that heavenly glory [creation]."

I am only quoting what the Bible says.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. -Romans 1:20 NKJV​

 

[AV1611VET]

I am only quoting what the Bible says.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. -Romans 1:20 NKJV​

I agree with you on this.

But note the cause-and-effect that occurs in the next two verses:

Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 

[Brightmoon]

Then what's military science?

technology, mainly using the science of physics and chemistry to make war materiel

 

[BradB]

I agree with you on this.

But note the cause-and-effect that occurs in the next two verses:

Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

I understand what happens when you know God (and His existence) and refuse to glorify (acknowledge)Him, or be thankful to Him. I understand you get tangled up in the foolishness of your own professed wisdom. The topic I was responding to is that our initial evidence for God (according to Him) is seen in what He made. This applies to all peoples for all times. I can't just rely on the Bible to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. The disciples were the "Bible" in their time. Can you imagine what it is like to be able to tell someone who doesn't know Christ that you were there and saw Him raised after three days in the grave. That you touched His hands and His side and saw where He had been pierced. Personal eyewitness testimony is pretty solid. No one can argue to them that it didn't happen. Today however some 2000 years later the enemy seeks to discredit the story on every front. Starting with the very existence of God. Then he tries to discredit the accounts of the disciples by discrediting the Bible itself. If he can present just one place in the text of the Bible that conflicts with known reality (science) then he can say the entire word of God is just a book full of foolish fables. If the enemy can show just one place where the Bible conflicts with known history then he can claim that the accounts of Jesus are unreliable. If he can produce an inconsistency where the Bible claims one thing in one passage however claims the opposite elsewhere, then the enemy can say the Bible is untrustworthy. And if he can present just one example where a prophecy failed then the enemy can say the God of the Bible cannot truly be an all knowing God.

What I have just described is called the SHIP test and the Bible passes it with flying colors. In many ways it surpasses it. But if we are going to reach a world who have become entangled in the wisdom of fools then we better be able to demonstrate to them good reasons to believe God exists, and His book the Bible is His divinely inspired word.

 

[BradB]

There is no such scientific law.



The conditions found relative to our particular planet aren't that remarkable given the sheer size of the known universe. The universe is estimated to have billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars per galaxy. That some parts of the universe may have conditions suitable life seems less remarkable and more an inevitability.

Kind of like how winning the lottery for any individual is highly improbable, but if enough people play then at least someone is likely to win.

I see that you only touched on the conditions of our planet and not the laws of physics. But lets look at your analogy (the lottery) for a second. Did someone think up the lottery? Did someone have to think to play the lottery? Does playing require some basic thinking or understanding of numbers or can my house fern play? Does winning and claiming the prize require any thinking at all? I could go on and on but I think you get it. Intelligence of some sort is required for the lottery to even be a thing. I realize it was just a poor analogy and you just meant it to get the concept of dumb luck across. But my point is that even your "dumb luck" notions require enormous amounts of "engineering." My knee jerk response to this of course is that we are talking about observable science here. Not our personal notions of what "could be true." So unless you have evidence that there is at least one other place suitable for life in the universe... then what could be is irrelevant. And don't get me wrong here, I believe that life on other planets is possible and could even fit within the framework of Christianity. Non intelligent life that is. When I walk through an aquatic zoo I may see many habitats set up perfectly to support the various fish life there. But another habitat capable of sustaining life doesn't mean that it all happened by chance.

We have examples of both mutations that can increase genetic content (e.g. gene duplications) and beneficial mutations. In fact I remember going over all of this in prior discussions with you.

Gene duplication doesn't demonstrate how the genes came into existence, no more than Xeroxing a page from a book shows how the words in that book were formed. As for the other, by all means please do show me an example of an observed random mutation that added new and beneficial gene increasing type of information to the genome of multi-celled organism. I do recall our previous discussion as well.

I also recall that you never responded to my replies.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Methane on Mars.

 

[Brightmoon]

Gene and chromosome duplication shows exactly how mutations to existing genes make new genes. That icefish blood antifreeze that used a digestive enzyme as a template is one such. The Hox genes , humans have 4 sets . Some Hox genes are identical, some are mutated, a few are missing from one or more of the sets