Exploring the Harmony Between Faith and Science in Understanding Life

[Phil G]

You must have been a few of the ones where God was on your side, but there were loads who unfortunately didn't make it.

John O'Looney Update 12/6 Not only jabs but illness

John O'Looney is an upstanding, intelligent, moral man who is putting his life and career on the line to try to save humanity. He gives an update on the deaths and illnesses that he is seeing as this

rumble.com

Conspiracy theory.

Leading anti-vaxxer finally admits COVID is real after being taken to ICU with virus

Funeral director John O'Looney, 53, had claimed coronavirus was 'just a common cold'.

uk.news.yahoo.com

 

[BNR32FAN]

To be fair, even though the thread has skewed in the direction, the OP isn't about "Do you think scientists are wrong/dishonest?". It is "How, as a Christian, do you reconcile science with your beliefs?"

No I don’t think it’s deliberate, there’s too many people studying the same fields who are all to eager to prove everyone else wrong for that to be plausible. But then again it also depends on whether they can be proven wrong. I remember looking into the Tiktaalik discovery and I stumbled across a similar animal that was found at the same place, I apologize I can’t remember the name of it. But what I thought was interesting is that the founder of tiktaalik was saying that it was a transitional species from a fish to a land dwelling animal. So the other discovery they found afterwards had shorter less developed legs so they automatically placed it in the fossil record before tiktaalik and what I found surprising is that this animal was found at a higher elevation than tiktaalik which should suggest that it was actually a creature that lived after tiktaalik not before it. So they didn’t place it in the fossil record according to the geological column they placed it in the fossil record according to where they thought it should go according to their theory. So this discovery didn’t alter their theory any even tho it appears to contradict it, instead they ignored the geological column and placed it where they wanted it to be in the fossil record. Who cares, they can’t be proven wrong because it’s all theory anyways. So I think there are some cases where they overlook certain details in order to promote their theory.

You must have been a few of the ones where God was on your side, but there were loads who unfortunately didn't make it.

John O'Looney Update 12/6 Not only jabs but illness

John O'Looney is an upstanding, intelligent, moral man who is putting his life and career on the line to try to save humanity. He gives an update on the deaths and illnesses that he is seeing as this

rumble.com

People have been dying from heart attacks, strokes, and aneurisms for thousands of years before the vaccination. This guy in the video doesn’t even say how much of an increase he’s seeing. He gives no explanation as to how this is happening. He mentions blood clots and immunity deficiency which are illnesses that are not related to one another. I know hundreds of people who were vaccinated and not one of them had any side effects. Why is that?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No I don’t think it’s deliberate, there’s too many people studying the same fields who are all to eager to prove everyone else wrong for that to be plausible. But then again it also depends on whether they can be proven wrong. I remember looking into the Tiktaalik discovery and I stumbled across a similar animal that was found at the same place, I apologize I can’t remember the name of it. But what I thought was interesting is that the founder of tiktaalik was saying that it was a transitional species from a fish to a land dwelling animal. So the other discovery they found afterwards had shorter less developed legs so they automatically placed it in the fossil record before tiktaalik and what I found surprising is that this animal was found at a higher elevation than tiktaalik which should suggest that it was actually a creature that lived after tiktaalik not before it. So they didn’t place it in the fossil record according to the geological column they placed it in the fossil record according to where they thought it should go according to their theory. So this discovery didn’t alter their theory any even tho it appears to contradict it, instead they ignored the geological column and placed it where they wanted it to be in the fossil record. Who cares, they can’t be proven wrong because it’s all theory anyways. So I think there are some cases where they overlook certain details in order to promote their theory.

Okay... how does that answer the OP's question of "How, as a Christian, do you reconcile science with your beliefs?"?

 

[dlamberth]

This isn't a conspiracy theory.

Yes it is!

 

[BNR32FAN]

Okay... how does that answer the OP's question of "How, as a Christian, do you reconcile science with your beliefs?"?

There’s a lot to that question. I’m at work so I’ll give a quick response. So the isotopic dating methods, we have no way of knowing how much isotopic decay was present in materials when they were created. Why can we see stars 46 billion light years away? Because Genesis 1 specifically says that God made them to be signs of the seasons for man so obviously He would’ve had to make them visible to us. Ice layers, the ice in the arctic melts & freezes multiple times per year. Anything else you want me to touch on?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There’s a lot to that question. I’m at work so I’ll give a quick response. So the isotopic dating methods, we have no way of knowing how much isotopic decay was present in materials when they were created. Why can we see stars 46 billion light years away? Because Genesis 1 specifically says that God made them to be signs of the seasons for man so obviously He would’ve had to make them visible to us. Ice layers, the ice in the arctic melts & freezes multiple times per year. Anything else you want me to touch on?

Just the OP question: How, as a Christian, do you reconcile science with your beliefs? Is it something you can do or is it something you cannot do?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Just the OP question: How, as a Christian, do you reconcile science with your beliefs? Is it something you can do or is it something you cannot do?

I can, that’s what I was demonstrating in my last post.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I can, that’s what I was demonstrating in my last post.

You didn't though, especially not in your previous rambling post about what you think about theories, and your very nondescriptive talk about Genesis 1 and ice layers and ages of stars and isotopic layers.

So: How, as a Christian, do you reconcile science with your beliefs? Is it something you can do or is it something you cannot do?

And no-one is looking for examples of what you think about science. Just answer the question put to you: How, as a Christian, do you reconcile science with your beliefs? Is it something you can do or is it something you cannot do?

 

[BNR32FAN]

You didn't though, especially not in your previous rambling post about what you think about theories, and your very nondescriptive talk about Genesis 1 and ice layers and ages of stars and isotopic layers.

So: How, as a Christian, do you reconcile science with your beliefs? Is it something you can do or is it something you cannot do?

And no-one is looking for examples of what you think about science. Just answer the question put to you: How, as a Christian, do you reconcile science with your beliefs? Is it something you can do or is it something you cannot do?

There is no single answer for that question. When you say science, that entails a lot of different topics. The way I reconcile my Christian beliefs with science is different depending on what scientific belief you’re talking about. I’m not going to have the same answer on isotopic decay that I have for seeing shooting stars and supernovas. When I explain how I reconcile isotopic decay with my Christian beliefs that is me explaining exactly how I reconcile science with my Christian beliefs. When I say exactly how I reconcile the ability to see stars that are 46 billion light years away, that’s me explaining how I reconcile science with my Christian beliefs. I’ve answered your question 3 times already. I can’t give one single answer that encompasses all teachings of science because science encompasses a lot of different topics, and therefore requires different answers for each topic.

 

[AV1611VET]

And no-one is looking for examples of what you think about science. Just answer the question put to you: How, as a Christian, do you reconcile science with your beliefs? Is it something you can do or is it something you cannot do?

Easy peasy for me:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There is no single answer for that question. When you say science, that entails a lot of different topics. The way I reconcile my Christian beliefs with science is different depending on what scientific belief you’re talking about. I’m not going to have the same answer on isotopic decay that I have for seeing shooting stars and supernovas. When I explain how I reconcile isotopic decay with my Christian beliefs that is me explaining exactly how I reconcile science with my Christian beliefs. When I say exactly how I reconcile the ability to see stars that are 46 billion light years away, that’s me explaining how I reconcile science with my Christian beliefs. I’ve answered your question 3 times already. I can’t give one single answer that encompasses all teachings of science because science encompasses a lot of different topics, and therefore requires different answers for each topic.

Fair enough. I do not believe that you have answered my question, but I'll accept what you say.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Easy peasy for me:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Did not ask you and do not care.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did not ask you and do not care.

Would you care for anyone's answer, if you believed they answered it to your satisfaction?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Would you care for anyone's answer, if you believed they answered it to your satisfaction?

AV, I thought it would be clear by now that when I directly ask someone a question, they're the ones I want to answer the question. It should be painfully obvious to anyone that can read basic English.

 

[Marvelloustime]

many shcolars are full of pride and dont really even know the bible .
And the so called iconsistencies if Old test and torah and etc , That was their own misunderstanding .
Some of us by grace have read that bible for hours daily and done so over eighteen years now .
What might sometimes seem as a contradiction or etc , It aint . its lack of understanding on our part .
The more we read it for ourselves , the more it will come together . only MOST Wont do that . they had
rather heed men and scholars .

 

[Hans Blaster]

[images deleted for sanity]

CF is not an image board, meme board, or any such thing. This is also not the "post scripture" part of CF. Please stick to the topic of the thread and board.

 

[Valletta]

To be fair, even though the thread has skewed in the direction, the OP isn't about "Do you think scientists are wrong/dishonest?". It is "How, as a Christian, do you reconcile science with your beliefs?"

I don't have any problem reconciling science with my beliefs. Now what passes for science in our culture often is not real science, so much has been politicized. T

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't have any problem reconciling science with my beliefs. Now what passes for science in our culture often is not real science, so much has been politicized. T

What is 'real science'?

 

[Valletta]

What is 'real science'?

For starters, real science must take place in an environment where the end result is not pre-determined or influenced by outside factors.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

For starters, real science must take place in an environment where the end result is not pre-determined or influenced by outside factors.

An example of 'real science' and 'not real science' being...?