Science vs. Christian

[Tom 1]

I was hoping this was going to be a 'batman vs superman' type thread. Disappointed.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The thing about science is what is scientific fact changes year to year. The bible or any religion for that matter is a matter of faith not fact. But the thing is science also gives some basis to a higher power. If you look at mathematical percentages the match says most likely there is some form of creator you can call it god or aliens but something created us.
Scientist say the universe evolved over billions of years.
Christians think the universe formed in 6 to 7 thousand years

Look at the first two lines of Genesis

Genesis
1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

It does not say when he created so it could have been over billions of years. He could of created the earth and dinosaurs and wiped them out to make room for humans.

Everyone likes arguing and fighting over beliefs when the bible gives room for science and science gives room for the bible.

Science is just an advanced form of drawing out parables from the creation, the issue is with guilty by association compounded with centuries of pointless arguments.

 

[JacksBratt]

The number of times that the canonized scripture states that the creation was six literal days is well documented. If you are a Christian and believe Christ was who He said He was... then why do you dispute this truth?

I'll tell you....

2 Timothy 4:3 King James Version (KJV)
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

Simply put... nobody wants to hear scripture that counters what they are taught in school. Nobody wants the conflict with these mere mortal men in white lab coats who say that their science makes the bible wrong. Nobody wants a failing grade on their exam based on biblical truth conflicting with the "wisdom" of men.

No, everyone just takes the words of the created... over the solid truth and word of the creator.

We are in the last days.. people don't want to hear sound doctrine. They want to hear that they are good and all is well and what they believe and do is OK....

Stand up and state the facts... the facts as stated by the creator... Six days... about 6000 years ago..

Sorry.. but that's the Word of God.

It baffles my mind that people trust part of the scripture for salvation.. and toss the rest due to their Darwinian, Atheistic, evolutionist professors.

Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Days?

 

[Tom 1]

The number of times that the canonized scripture states that the creation was six literal days is well documented. If you are a Christian and believe Christ was who He said He was... then why do you dispute this truth?

I'll tell you....

2 Timothy 4:3 King James Version (KJV)
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

Simply put... nobody wants to hear scripture that counters what they are taught in school. Nobody wants the conflict with these mere mortal men in white lab coats who say that their science makes the bible wrong. Nobody wants a failing grade on their exam based on biblical truth conflicting with the "wisdom" of men.

No, everyone just takes the words of the created... over the solid truth and word of the creator.

We are in the last days.. people don't want to hear sound doctrine. They want to hear that they are good and all is well and what they believe and do is OK....

Stand up and state the facts... the facts as stated by the creator... Six days... about 6000 years ago..

Sorry.. but that's the Word of God.

It baffles my mind that people trust part of the scripture for salvation.. and toss the rest due to their Darwinian, Atheistic, evolutionist professors.

Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Days?

Nope. That's what you think it means. Ironically the reason you think that is because of Darwin and all the rest of it.

 

[Acts2:38]

You are avoiding simple answers as much as possible. Not a good sign.

Not only DID I answer you, I gave you plenty of scripture and Historical evidence.

That WAS an answer really. Obviously I contend that that is so. I thought you could actually decipher that as a yes and see the evidence at the same time. My bad for assuming such.

 

[trophy33]

Not only DID I answer you, I gave you plenty of scripture and Historical evidence.

That WAS an answer really. Obviously I contend that that is so. I thought you could actually decipher that as a yes and see the evidence at the same time. My bad for assuming such.

So, can you answer simply, without a need to decipher your answers or without a need to look for it in a tun of text?

Thanks.

 

[Strugglingsaint]

So, can you answer simply, without a need to decipher your answers or without a need to look for it in a tun of text?

Thanks.

Mate, to be honest, I don't see what's so difficult in seeing his point? He's explained it quite well, in his defense.

Unless you're asking a loaded question and only presenting two options; committing a false dilemma fallacy by the way; because you have an agenda on where you want to lead the discussion?

Are you from Czechoslovakia or Moravia? Which of the two are you from?

 

[Hawkins]

Science is about how we work under human capability and how far we can reach. What we did is basically within our reach and comprehension. Scientists have been also tried to work beyond this. In terms of time and space, both quantum physics and relativity actually go beyond what we can physically observe and comprehend. They also go beyond what we can even assume.

Time resembles space. Time is a constant only in a way how we experience it and observe it within our own space and perspective. "Time resembles space" could be anything, even something beyond human comprehension. To put it another way, time as how we assume it could be wrong, or incomplete. It's not without scope or limitation. In the end, there's a chance that time (and space) may not be what we comprehend it within our own time-space.

 

[JacksBratt]

Nope. That's what you think it means. Ironically the reason you think that is because of Darwin and all the rest of it.

Nope, the reason I think it .........is cause it says it.... not only that, but it reinforces it by repetitively stating.. "there was evening, there was morning, the first, second, third... day"...

Not fitting any millennia in there no matter how much you bend, twist, skew or spin it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Wow, this was long.

You will quote something from some today's English Bible and tell me that its what "Yahuweh" says, right?

What for ? You can read the Bible for yourself, just as you are using the internet, right?

So, can you answer simply, without a need to decipher your answers or without a need to look for it in a tun of text?

Thanks.

Mate, to be honest, I don't see what's so difficult in seeing his point? He's explained it quite well, in his defense.
Unless you're asking a loaded question and only presenting two options; committing a false dilemma fallacy by the way; because you have an agenda on where you want to lead the discussion?
Are you from Czechoslovakia or Moravia? Which of the two are you from?

Earth?

 

[trophy33]

Mate, to be honest, I don't see what's so difficult in seeing his point? He's explained it quite well, in his defense.

Unless you're asking a loaded question and only presenting two options; committing a false dilemma fallacy by the way; because you have an agenda on where you want to lead the discussion?

Are you from Czechoslovakia or Moravia? Which of the two are you from?

I do not see how the dilemma is false.

We either have a Bible dictated word for word, i.e. 100% God's word and perfect. Or human writers put also their own thoughts and knowledge into the text, therefore its not 100% God´s word, but the inspired thoughts were put to the text in a human language.

If somebody believes that every word is perfect, then he must believe in a dictation.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I do not see how the dilemma is false.

We either have a Bible dictated word for word, i.e. 100% God's word and perfect. Or human writers put also their own thoughts and knowledge into the text, therefore its not 100% God´s word, but the inspired thoughts were put to the text in a human language.

If somebody believes that every word is perfect, then he must believe in a dictation.

False premise I'd say. Not an either or situation.

See what Yahuweh Himself Says about His Own Word. THAT is what is important and lasts forever .
What posters post here, what men say anywhere, is not nearly as important,

unless they are messengers of Yahuweh with a message He Says Is Important.

 

[trophy33]

What posters post here, what men say anywhere, is not nearly as important,

But I am writing to the posters here.

 

[The Barbarian]

Scientist say the universe evolved over billions of years.
Christians think the universe formed in 6 to 7 thousand years

Some Christians do. Most Christians don't.

 

[Acts2:38]

So, can you answer simply, without a need to decipher your answers or without a need to look for it in a tun of text?

Thanks.

Do you just skim through what I post? Are you even looking for a plain and simple answer?
Because I just gave you the simple answer in my last post.

I am almost convinced you a just playing ignorant on purpose.

 

[Job 33:6]

The thing about science is what is scientific fact changes year to year. The bible or any religion for that matter is a matter of faith not fact. But the thing is science also gives some basis to a higher power. If you look at mathematical percentages the match says most likely there is some form of creator you can call it god or aliens but something created us.
Scientist say the universe evolved over billions of years.
Christians think the universe formed in 6 to 7 thousand years

Look at the first two lines of Genesis

Genesis
1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

It does not say when he created so it could have been over billions of years. He could of created the earth and dinosaurs and wiped them out to make room for humans.

Everyone likes arguing and fighting over beliefs when the bible gives room for science and science gives room for the bible.

An old earth has been understood and accepted by geologists since the 1700s. So I'm not sure where you get off suggesting changes "year to year".

 

[Acts2:38]

An old earth has been understood and accepted by geologists since the 1700s. So I'm not sure where you get off suggesting changes "year to year".

To be honest, thats not true. Your statement implies ALL geologists believe that, which isnt so. That is why people still debate it today. It is not absolute fact either, and has not been proved.

Carbon dating has been found quite inaccurate as well. A study has show that out of 400 machines around the world over 380 were found unreliable to the given testing. Carbon dating is unreliable at best.

Also, science does change, until fact can be proven. The "big bang theory" is just that, a theory, unproven as fact. Yet they teach it in schools like it is fact. I find that sad really. It is only a theory that is unproven.

Furthermore, scientists have tried to produce life from gases and such and lifeless matter since the 1800's to no effect. Year to year, they find out more and more, that they cannot prove that first step in the evolution they hold dear.

So, yes, science does and can change until the fact is proven. Theres a few things we thought was so in the 90's, that continued scientific study has found inaccurate now days.

 

[JacksBratt]

To be honest, thats not true. Your statement implies ALL geologists believe that, which isnt so. That is why people still debate it today. It is not absolute fact either, and has not been proved.

Carbon dating has been found quite inaccurate as well. A study has show that out of 400 machines around the world over 380 were found unreliable to the given testing. Carbon dating is unreliable at best.

Also, science does change, until fact can be proven. The "big bang theory" is just that, a theory, unproven as fact. Yet they teach it in schools like it is fact. I find that sad really. It is only a theory that is unproven.

Furthermore, scientists have tried to produce life from gases and such and lifeless matter since the 1800's to no effect. Year to year, they find out more and more, that they cannot prove that first step in the evolution they hold dear.

So, yes, science does and can change until the fact is proven. Theres a few things we thought was so in the 90's, that continued scientific study has found inaccurate now days.

The sad part is that there is a lot of "theory" out there that is taught as fact to the students. Then, students, being students, take it as gospel. This creates a generation of people who are believing things that are theoretical... to be absolutes.

We need to start teach our kids how to think, research, question and observe... no matter what the source, how long the view has been held and ... the big one... how many people accept it compared to how many don't accept it...

People who are questioning things should be encouraged... not condescended, criticized, insulted, discredited and humiliated.

 

[Job 33:6]

To be honest, thats not true. Your statement implies ALL geologists believe that, which isnt so. That is why people still debate it today. It is not absolute fact either, and has not been proved.

Carbon dating has been found quite inaccurate as well. A study has show that out of 400 machines around the world over 380 were found unreliable to the given testing. Carbon dating is unreliable at best.

Also, science does change, until fact can be proven. The "big bang theory" is just that, a theory, unproven as fact. Yet they teach it in schools like it is fact. I find that sad really. It is only a theory that is unproven.

Furthermore, scientists have tried to produce life from gases and such and lifeless matter since the 1800's to no effect. Year to year, they find out more and more, that they cannot prove that first step in the evolution they hold dear.

So, yes, science does and can change until the fact is proven. Theres a few things we thought was so in the 90's, that continued scientific study has found inaccurate now days.

When the founding fathers realized the earth was old, they made up perhaps just a fraction of a percent of all geologists. Now 99% of us accept an old earth, 300 years later. If anything has changed year to year, it's been a growing number of geologists in support of an old earth. Young earth views have been in the backseat for generations now. And rightfully so.

Otherwise, the science of uniformitarianism, has remained unchanged for over 300 years now. It has only been expounded upon.

Also, the founding fathers never knew anything about carbon dating, and even in today's time, carbon dating isn't used in understanding the age of the earth.

Lastly, plate tectonics is a theory too, but you won't find geologists who don't accept it, with the exception of a couple young earth Creationists who are essentially religious extremists.

 

[Tone]

essentially religious extremists.

The demons probably considered Eve to be one of these...before she ate the fruit...