Share good examples of Christian Science

[Aussie Pete]

You mean like how metals like iron when exposed to the elements 'suddenly, for no reason', corrode forming oxides; how volcanic sulphur 'suddenly, for no reason' forms sulphuric acid; how minerals dissolved in water 'suddenly, for no reason', precipitate out, forming crystals and other deposits?

IOW, you mean chemistry? Is it so surprising that chemistry occurs when there are chemicals around?

Life is basically just a very complex redox reaction. One light-hearted way of putting it is that the purpose of life is to hydrogenate carbon dioxide.

BTW, chemical reactions don't always happen suddenly, they can be very slow, but they always have a reason (a cause, an explanation).

Even if precursors for life occur, in the right place at the right time (70 years of OOL research says it's not happening), there is no mechanism by which those chemicals can come to life. A lightning strike? I know about lightning through work before I retired. It is entirely destructive, not constructive. What else could it be? Frank Crick had no explanation, Nobel prize notwithstanding. Fred Hoyle must have watched too many sci fi movies. "In the beginning, God......." is still the most plausible and logical explanation that I've ever heard.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Yeah, although that's a gross exaggeration, it has a grain of truth - any fule kno headlines are often fake news. If you want to be well-informed, don't take headlines or publicity releases, written by attention-seeking non-scientists, at face value, read the peer-reviewed papers that they're based on. There you'll find the real story - which often involves a tentative identification requiring further substantiation.

The trouble is that there are many, many "fules" out there. If it is spoken by a scientist, it must be true. I read those headlines and wait for a few months until the retractions occur. You have to look for them. Retractions are not nearly as much fun as exciting new discoveries that change history for ever.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You don't see the inconsistencies that if the wheel was invented 5500 years ago then by your logic the hunter gathering stage only lasted for around 500 years,

That’s not by my logic at all. That’s according to your logic. Your the one saying hunter/ gatherers had no need for the wheel not me. The invention of the wheel isn’t what would change their way of getting food, agriculture would be the discovery to bring that about.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It's an argument that I came across recently on the Creation Evolution Headlines web site. It is compelling, in my view. It will never convince an evolutionist because logic and reason are beyond them. This applies especially to OOL. For some reason, Darwin, who was not an evolutionist at first, could come up with a theory and promote it. However, people like Jim Tour are too stupid to understand the concepts of evolution so they are dismissed. Romans 1:22 applies as much today as ever

"…For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images of mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.…"

Which is precisely why I believe the age of the earth is inherently deceptive much like Jesus’ parables to those who refused to listen to Him. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear. I believe the earth may appear to be older than it actually is for the same exact reason that Jesus spoke in parables. So that those who don’t want to believe won’t.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There was agriculture in the very beginning. The evidence for that was lost on Noah's flood. He knew how to farm. The first thing he did was plant a vineyard. Interesting set of priorities.

Absolutely, Cain & Able’s offerings were evidence of agriculture.

 

[HIM]

Is Genesis History?

Rent or Buy the Feature Film @ Amazon: Watch Is Genesis History? | Prime Video (amazon.com)

Official Trailer
​

The Cast (all Christians)

• Kevin Anderson, PhD – Microbiologist
• Steve Austin, PhD – Geologist
• Steven Boyd, PhD – Hebraist
• Robert Carter, PhD – Marine Biologist
• Arthur Chadwick, PhD – Taphonomist
• Danny Faulkner, PhD – Astronomer
• George Grant, PhD – Pastor
• Paul Nelson, PhD – Philosopher of Science
• Douglas Petrovich, PhD – Archeologist
• Marcus Ross, PhD – Paleontologist
• Andrew Snelling, PhD – Geologist
• Kurt Wise, PhD – Paleontologist
• Todd Wood, PhD – Biologist
• Stuart Burgess, PhD – Mechanical Engineer (Bonus Features)
• Douglas Kelly, PhD – Theologian (Bonus Features)
• Larry Vardiman, PhD – Atmospheric Physicist (Bonus Features)

The Topics Covered In The Film

• Paradigms
• Created Kinds
• Fossil Record
• DNA
• Transitional Forms
• Historic Views
• Evolution
• Ecosystems

• Global Flood
• Starlight
• Tower of Babel
• Big Bang
• Rock Layers
• Genealogies
• Isotope Dating
• Beauty

• Hebrew Text
• Dinosaurs
• Epochs of History
• Neanderthals
• Nautiloids
• Soft Tissue
• Coal Formation
• And much more…

Strobel's 'Case for a xxxx' aren't good and they certainly aren't science. They provide nothing new or of interest about the natural world, possess no real explanatory or predictive power and aren't subject to revision should more/better information come along.

They are apologetics. Intended to appeal to the sort of Christians that are so insecure in their faith they can't handle understanding the natural world as it actually is. Instead, they cling or revert to increasingly bizarre versions of biblical literalism that require outright rejection of the vast amount of progress made in understanding the world in the last 100 to 150 years.

Did you watch the video.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There are still quite a few around (Kalahari bushmen of Africa, the Spinifex of Australia, the Sentinelese of the Andaman Islands, the Pirahã of Brazil, the Batak of the Western Philippines), and last I heard, they don't use carts.

None of these use farming or tend livestock?

 

[tas8831]

Above is Lee Strobel's creationism documentary entitled "The Case For a Creator".

I first saw this documentary maybe 5 years ago and remember it as good content for anyone interested in alternatives to evolutionary theory. It is a good watch for those interested in the scientific side of creationism in general.

Please watch and enjoy~

And share other examples of science that Christians might be interested in or learn from.

I have read some of his stuff. It is fluff and pap, like all creationist propaganda. If I was interested in science, I sure would not hang my hat on the musings of a "journalist" with a streak of religious fanatacism.

 

[tas8831]

Did you watch the video.

Did you?
If so, what - specifically - made you accept his claims?

 

[tas8831]

• Steve Austin, PhD – Geologist

​

Cool - does Steve mention Stuart Nevins?
See, Stuart Nevins was Austin's pen name when he was writing creationist essays while pretending to be a real student/scientist. He claimed studying at Mt.St. Helens converted him to creationism, yet he was writing creationist garbage at least 4 years prior. He was "outed" by fellow creationist Walt Brown.

I have a hard time trusting such a lying charlatan.

• Todd Wood, PhD – Biologist

The Todd Wood that wrote this:

Todd Wood, PhD., any bolding mine:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.
​

Sounds like a great movie or whatever it is...

 

[tas8831]

Anything by James Tour, professor at Rice University. He's one of the most influential scientists in the world.

Is he? Is that what he says? I had never heard of him until the creationists started putting him on a pedestal.
He is now reduced to screaming on the internet.

He recently produced a number of videos debunking origin of life theories that reject God as the author of life. He has also debunked evolution.

No, he really didn't.

I'm guessing you are impressed with him because, like the majority of creationists, you have a grasp of science on par with an 8th grader, and when a fellow creationist with some letters after his name uses big words, you just fawn over his brilliance.

His claims debunked, his attitude exposed.

 

[tas8831]

Considering these are all from Christian sites or authors, i.e. even scientifically literate Christians don't think it's a good example of Christian science, I suggest this is a poor submission.

But gosh - it TOTALLY impresses creationists with no grasp of actual science, so it MUST be good and right!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Even if precursors for life occur, in the right place at the right time (70 years of OOL research says it's not happening), there is no mechanism by which those chemicals can come to life. A lightning strike? I know about lightning through work before I retired. It is entirely destructive, not constructive. What else could it be? Frank Crick had no explanation, Nobel prize notwithstanding. Fred Hoyle must have watched too many sci fi movies. "In the beginning, God......." is still the most plausible and logical explanation that I've ever heard.

Chemicals don't suddenly 'come to life'; the vitalist idea that there must be some magical spark or vital force for life was abandoned 200 years ago. Life may have appeared quickly in geological terms, but the earliest estimates are around 100 million years after the oceans formed, and the process was probably a relatively slow, cumulative affair.

In the right conditions, with plenty of free energy, cyclic chains of reactions can occur similar to those in modern cell metabolism; lipid 'bubbles' like simple protocells can self-assemble and grow and divide; and so-on. If you're really interested in how it's thought life could have arisen, the Wikipedia article gives a fairly good overview of the different hypotheses.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The trouble is that there are many, many "fules" out there. If it is spoken by a scientist, it must be true.

So now you know that if it's spoken by a scientist about science, it will be provisional and based on currently available evidence.

I read those headlines and wait for a few months until the retractions occur. You have to look for them. Retractions are not nearly as much fun as exciting new discoveries that change history for ever.

Like I said, if you want to know what the science really says read the published papers not the headlines.

 

[tas8831]

I’d like to share something I’ve noticed that I’ve never seen anyone mention as evidence against evolution. It’s focused more towards the young earth theory but I believe anything that supports the young earth theory is evidence against evolution since everyone seems to agree that the evolution process couldn’t have taken place in just 6,000 years.

My evidence is based on man’s advancement in technology. Historians believe the wheel was invented some time around 3500 BC. Evolutionists typically believe that man as we know him today has existed for around 300,000 years. So based on man’s technological advancements in just the last 6,000 years, is it more plausible that it took man 500 years to invent the wheel or 285,000 years to invent it? Seeing the advancement man has made in just the last 6,000 years it doesn’t seem plausible to me that it would take him 57 times longer to invent something as primitive as the wheel as it would to invent space travel or every other advanced technology we have today. What are your thoughts?

Wow, great evidence....

Perhaps you can explain why you think if creation happened it took 2500 years for fully modern humans to invent the wheel?

I mean after you produce valid evidence that creation actually happened as described in the ancient middle eastern scrolls.

 

[tas8831]

So your comparing 285,000 years to be able to carve a wheel as compared to another 7,500 years to learn what oil is, how to drill for oil, how to refine it for lubricant, how to refine it for gasoline, learn how to create electricity, then learn how to combust gasoline, learn how to cast iron, forge steel, learn advanced mechanics, and piece that all together? Anyone can create a wheel with any simple wood cutting device in one day. That’s hardly a comparison.

And the timing of a particular invention is irrelevant to the origin of species as explained by evolution.

 

[tas8831]

I don’t know, I don’t know of any societies today that solely rely on hunting & gathering. Do you?

!Kung?

 

[tas8831]

Even if precursors for life occur, in the right place at the right time (70 years of OOL research says it's not happening),

You've studied up on OOL research? Cool - can you provide some citations or references to the work that supports your claim?

there is no mechanism by which those chemicals can come to life. A lightning strike? I know about lightning through work before I retired. It is entirely destructive, not constructive. What else could it be? Frank Crick had no explanation, Nobel prize notwithstanding. Fred Hoyle must have watched too many sci fi movies. "In the beginning, God......." is still the most plausible and logical explanation that I've ever heard.

That is because that it the one you've been browbeaten into believing no matter what.

 

[tas8831]

Absolutely, Cain & Able’s [sic] offerings were evidence of agriculture.

Who did Cain marry again?

 

[tas8831]

So your comparing 285,000 years to be able to carve a wheel as compared to another 7,500 years to learn what oil is, how to drill for oil, how to refine it for lubricant, how to refine it for gasoline, learn how to create electricity, then learn how to combust gasoline, learn how to cast iron, forge steel, learn advanced mechanics, and piece that all together? Anyone can create a wheel with any simple wood cutting device in one day. That’s hardly a comparison.

How come Jesus did not invent the personal computer? Makes no sense. I guess creation is wrong.