Share good examples of Christian Science

1rreducibly Complex · Sep 17, 2021

Hans Blaster said:
Creationism isn't science; it is religion. As such it not only doesn't belong in a science class, but not in any public school at all. Teach it in your church all you want.

Real and legitimate science, is supposed to have no prejudices or boundaries.

Its not supposed to pick and choose. It shouldn't say only some things which support a narrative can be science, while other things should be censored or banned.

Science is supposed to go where the evidence and the facts are. Its not supposed to be decided on a political level. Science is not supposed to be biased and play favorites. It should never say only secularism and atheism can be science, while creationism can never be.

The idea that creationism can never be science is purely political. It has absolutely nothing to do with actual science.

If schools and governments cannot endorse christianity(theism), agnosticism and atheism should also never be endorsed. However as we see this is not the case.

pitabread · Sep 17, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
Of course, everyone has had evolutionary theory crammed down their throats as much as schools, science and the media have been able to support that movement.

So just high school I'm assuming?

You would not want to know my unflattering views on science relating to evolution. Let's just leave it at that.

Oh, I'm sure I've heard it before hundreds of times. I'm not new to the C/E debate.

pitabread · Sep 17, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
Science is supposed to go where the evidence and the facts are.

It did. Which is why the theory of evolution is one of the pillars of modern biology.

The idea that creationism can never be science is purely political. It has absolutely nothing to do with actual science.

Creationism relies on supernatural miracles. Since there is no way to scientifically test the supernatural, that keeps creationism out of the scientific arena.

Aussie Pete · Sep 18, 2021

tas8831 said:
Your projection is typical and pathetic.
Sad, really.

I've had decades of discussion with people on these issues. Since they cannot answer the argument, they resort to insults such as "creationist hack". Gee, you must have been up all night thinking that one up.

1rreducibly Complex · Sep 18, 2021

pitabread said:
It did. Which is why the theory of evolution is one of the pillars of modern biology.

The way real science works is. Nikola Tesla waging a small war against Thomas Edison to prove his theory of AC electricity being best suited for residential use. Einstein having years of struggles to prove some of his theories correct to the doubters and naysayers.

There was no competition and no struggle present with evolutionary theory being adopted. There was never an open discussion or debate between creationism and evolution that was credible or objective. Nor any real attempt made to vet competing theories like creationism or evolution for integrity.

Evolutionary theory was simply pushed through by deep pockets, big money and powerful political connections.

Evolution is political science. Funded and endorsed by ruling elites. Who crammed it down the throats of the entire world.

It is not and never will be legitimate science.

pitabread said:
Creationism relies on supernatural miracles. Since there is no way to scientifically test the supernatural, that keeps creationism out of the scientific arena.

I never understood why naysayers of creationism waste so much time and energy posting on forums.

When they could take 5 minutes to visit youtube or a search engine to type: "scientific evidence for creationism". Which would lay most of their misconceptions to rest.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Sep 18, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
Evolutionary theory was simply pushed through by deep pockets, big money and powerful political connections.

Evolution is political science. Funded and endorsed by ruling elites. Who crammed it down the throats of the entire world.

It is not and never will be legitimate science.

So, for over a hundred years, scientists across the entire world in all developed nations have been funded by this shadowy, mysterious ruling elite to push evolutionary theory forward, including all the discoveries that have been made with it, to keep creationism, a pseudoscience that is really only cared about by American fundamentalist's Christians, from being accepted.

To borrow a phrase from another poster: and I'm Genghis Khan.

1rreducibly Complex · Sep 18, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
So, for over a hundred years, scientists across the entire world in all developed nations have been funded by this shadowy, mysterious ruling elite to push evolutionary theory forward, including all the discoveries that have been made with it, to keep creationism, a pseudoscience that is really only cared about by American fundamentalist's Christians, from being accepted.

To borrow a phrase from another poster: and I'm Genghis Khan.

How are broad and comprehensive campaigns for societal trends like open borders, vaccine mandates and COVID lockdowns pushed globally. With a coordinated and organized effort behind them.

Do people think they came up with these ideas on their own? Hahaha.

Basic history says: shadowy mysterious ruling elites have always been behind the majority of societal trends. You could look at Pythagoras being the leader of a secret society of ruling elites who pushed widespread cultural and political agendas 2,000+ years ago as a historical example.

Unfortunately you will probably never learn enough basic history to ever know that Pythagoras' example is the norm rather than the exception.

Shemjaza · Sep 18, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
How are broad and comprehensive campaigns for societal trends like open borders, vaccine mandates and COVID lockdowns pushed globally. With a coordinated and organized effort behind them.

Do people think they came up with these ideas on their own? Hahaha.

Basic history says: shadowy mysterious ruling elites have always been behind the majority of societal trends. You could look at Pythagoras being the leader of a secret society of ruling elites who pushed widespread cultural and political agendas 2,000+ years ago as a historical example.

Unfortunately you will probably never learn enough basic history to ever know that Pythagoras' example is the norm rather than the exception.

I don't think it's reasonable to describe bald assertions and conspiracy theories as "basic history".

Evolution is supported by evidence, creation science is not. But if you disagree, please present some actual evidence.

1rreducibly Complex · Sep 18, 2021

Shemjaza said:
I don't think it's reasonable to describe bald assertions and conspiracy theories as "basic history".

Evolution is supported by evidence, creation science is not. But if you disagree, please present some actual evidence.

Bolded quoted text ^ "Creationism is not supported by science".

Take 5 minutes to visit a search engine.

Keyword search: scientific evidence for creationism.

Read.

And realize that someone who knows absolutely nothing about science or creationism could learn and know more about science or creationism with a simple 5 minute google search, than you do now.

:oldthumbsup:

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 18, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
Real and legitimate science, is supposed to have no prejudices or boundaries.

Its not supposed to pick and choose. It shouldn't say only some things which support a narrative can be science, while other things should be censored or banned.

Science is supposed to go where the evidence and the facts are. Its not supposed to be decided on a political level. Science is not supposed to be biased and play favorites. It should never say only secularism and atheism can be science, while creationism can never be.

The idea that creationism can never be science is purely political. It has absolutely nothing to do with actual science.

If schools and governments cannot endorse christianity(theism), agnosticism and atheism should also never be endorsed. However as we see this is not the case.

Creationism has been shown to conflict with the evidence. In scientific terms, it's a falsified hypothesis.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 18, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
Bolded quoted text ^ "Creationism is not supported by science".

Take 5 minutes to visit a search engine.

Keyword search: scientific evidence for creationism.

Read.

And realize that someone who knows absolutely nothing about science or creationism could learn and know more about science or creationism with a simple 5 minute google search, than you do now.

Sadly, someone who knows absolutely nothing about science or creationism would likely be unable to distinguish good science from the reams of pseudoscience, false or misleading claims, conspiracy theories, and superstitious mumbo-jumbo.

It helps to have some formal background in the subject.

Shemjaza · Sep 18, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
Bolded quoted text ^ "Creationism is not supported by science".

Take 5 minutes to visit a search engine.

Keyword search: scientific evidence for creationism.

Read.

And realize that someone who knows absolutely nothing about science or creationism could learn and know more about science or creationism with a simple 5 minute google search, than you do now.

I have extensively. It's been lacking.

People claim to have it all the time... people also claim to have evidence for Islam... and technological UFOs... and the Flat Earth... claims aren't evidence. Evidence is evidence.

But I'm willing to accept that I could be wrong.

Find your best bit and start a thread on this forum.

driewerf · Sep 18, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
Bolded quoted text ^ "Creationism is not supported by science".

Take 5 minutes to visit a search engine.

Keyword search: scientific evidence for creationism.

Read.

And realize that someone who knows absolutely nothing about science or creationism could learn and know more about science or creationism with a simple 5 minute google search, than you do now.

Finding results in Google means nothing. It just means that people wrote stuff. You can also type "evidence for evolution", and you will find reading material. What matters is the quality of what is presented. So go ahead, show us the best you have.

driewerf · Sep 18, 2021

1rreducibly Complex said:
Its not supposed to pick and choose. It shouldn't say only some things which support a narrative can be science, while other things should be censored or banned.

Go tell that your fellow christian BNR32FAN.

BNR32FAN said:
I’ve already explain that I will seek explanations that support the scriptures not evidence that refutes them. That’s something that should be expected from a believer.

BNR32FAN · Sep 18, 2021

sjastro said:
Perhaps you should stick to faith based arguments instead demonstrating an ignorance about the science.
It's amazing how two wrong methods should produce results which correlate.

Not when the accuracy of both methods are inconsistent. It’s not surprising that if enough studies are conducted that at some point the numbers might eventually converge.

BNR32FAN · Sep 18, 2021

sjastro said:
An early method of dating whether it be of a Stone Age site or a dynastic period of ancient Egyptian civilization was through pottery.
It was found that pottery style, raw materials and manufacturing process relate to the period when the pottery was manufactured.
Even a shard of pottery can be sufficient to date it.
The manufacturing process involves firing which makes pottery an ideal candidate for thermoluminescence dating as shown in this video.

Thermoluminescent dating fails because it is based on the assumption that the gamma exposure has been constant when we have no way of knowing that. She says that in the video you posted. Listen very closely to what she says at two minutes 32 seconds into the video. If the absorption of the radiation occurs at a constant rate. Scientists predict that solar storms happen once a century which would be increasing the amount of gamma radiation massively affecting the trapped particles and the thermoluminescent readings making object appear way older than they actually are.

BNR32FAN · Sep 18, 2021

sjastro said:
Since you question the dating methods explain how you can definitively state the wheel was invented around 3500 BC.

I can’t, the earliest recorded use of carts in the Bible was during Jacob’s time around 1,800 BC. So I can say that they’ve existed at least since that time but that doesn’t necessarily mean they were used before that. My evidence is based on the assumption that historians are correct in their assessment.

BNR32FAN · Sep 18, 2021

Belk said:
Fair, just want to be certain. So back to your original point.

People who believe the bible speaks of a flat earth claim that it is clear that what was meant. Every Christian believes the bible clearly states what they believe to be the correct interpretation, yes?

The difference between flat earth and scientific dating methods is there are absolutely zero assumptions about the earth being a sphere. Carbon dating hangs on the principle that C14 has been constant in the atmosphere which we can’t prove and it’s known that the levels have been increasing, dendrochronology hangs on the principal that the trees haven’t encountered multiple droughts, freezes, and changes in nutrients having an affect of the formation of tree rings, and thermoluminescents dating completely ignores the theory that the earth has been subjected to solar storms on the average of once a century. It hangs on the principal that gamma exposure has been constant which many scientists seem to believe it hasn’t.

tas8831 · Sep 18, 2021

@chad kincham ?

tas8831 said:
Cool.
Now which of them used the bible in their research?

tas8831 · Sep 18, 2021

Aussie Pete said:
I've had decades of discussion with people on these issues. Since they cannot answer the argument, they resort to insults such as "creationist hack". Gee, you must have been up all night thinking that one up.

All this time and all you can do is whine. You never discuss anything in any depth, just spew slogans and mock indignation.

Share good examples of Christian Science

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

a day at the Zoo

a day at the Zoo

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads