Share good examples of Christian Science

[tas8831]

Since all the groundbreaking, paradigm creating scientists were god-believing creationists, including Francis Bacon, the father of the modern scientific method - who thus gave us modern science- I’d say there are tons of examples of the OP occurring.

You have those such as the founders of macro physics (Newton) and quantum physics, astronomers, genetics (Mendel)...

Those like Nicolas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, William Thompson Kelvin, Max Plank, and even Albert Einstein - who were either Christians or believed in a deist God as the architect and creator of the Universe.

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

 

[tas8831]

And yet there are many ex agnostics and atheists who were reached via apologetics.

And ex-Christians abound - some driven away from the fold via the lies apologists told them. Your point?

 

[tas8831]

And he has produced over 160 peer reviewed articles and has over 200 patents.

Which were on abiogenesis or evolution?

Are you familiar with the fallacy of the appeal to false authority?

 

[tas8831]

‘Regular’ science is today defined as atheist science - with a presupposition of materialism and naturalism.

Can you tell us all what those presuppositions are?
And then tell us what the presuppositions of those that adhere to supernaturalism and mysticism.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

None of these use farming or tend livestock?

Some groups from these cultures (except the Sentinelese) have settled under government programmes, some do piecemeal cultivation.

I am referring to those groups that continue their traditional hunter-gatherer lifestyles - they don't use carts.

 

[tas8831]

Yes, the somewhat overused word "genius" applies to Professor Tour. He also has a heart for the lost. I get an email every week, not about his work but his ministry. It would be wonderful if more people were praying for him. He gets a lot of flack for refuting origin of life theories.

That is because he refuted nothing. Pity that creationist-types are so gullible.

 

[tas8831]

None of which are related to evolutionary biology.

If you want to know why James Tour's arguments concerning evolutionary biology and abiogenesis are terrible, here's a good overview:

And, here's a more limited response to a particular video he published:

And, while I'm referencing Bill Ludlow, here's an excellent series of interviews he conducted with former creationists about why they are no longer creationists.

Shoot - I also linked Prof. Dave's video - should have read through the whole thread first!

 

[tas8831]

Creation Evolution Headlines web site.

Is that the site run by non-scientist Coppedge? The creationist that lost his lawsuit against JPL? The obnoxious malcontent who I caught claiming that "maximum likelihood" means 'the most likely' - i.e., a computer tech was too uninformed to know that "maximum likelihood" is an algorithm?

It will never convince an evolutionist because logic and reason are beyond them.

Hilarious...

 

[tas8831]

I have seen a lot of Jim Tour's videos. I am no genius, but what he has to say is way more convincing than OOL's "just so happened" bulldust.

Hilarious juxtaposition.

 

[tas8831]

I suggest that you watch his presentations and see for yourself. But basically the chemical soup theories, which are variations on a theme that somehow chemicals arranged themselves into a form that suddenly, for no reason, became alive.

He did this in a video, and not in a peer reviewed publication like an actual scientist would?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

‘Regular’ science is today defined as atheist science - with a presupposition of materialism and naturalism.

Science is the set of tools and methods for acquiring knowledge and understanding of the world. Calling it 'atheist' makes as much sense as 'atheist forensics', 'atheist spelunking', or 'atheist engineering'. There are plenty of religious believers doing science.

The only requirements for doing science is making observations and testing explanations for them. Materialism and naturalism are philosophical ideas, not scientific presuppositions.

Even commonly quoted presuppositions of science - e.g. that there is an observable reality and its observable behaviours have regularities, are actually well-tested implicit hypotheses.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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

According to the genealogy records in the scriptures the earth is only 6,000 years old. That means only 4,000 of those years were BC. So 3,500 BC would be 500 years after creation.

 

[HIM]

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

You did not then. Okay.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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

I disagree if we’re talking about the most primitive of accomplishments and if we also see a distinct imbalance in the rate of advancement. 294,000 years to invent something as simple as a wheel, something anyone can easily make in a single day, as compared to 5,500 years to go from the wheel to such advanced technology as space travel, computers, smartphones, satellites, internet, etc, which no one can build in a single day let alone in a single lifetime. You don’t see an imbalance in the rate of progress in technology here? It took 98% of man’s existence to build a simple wheel then he accomplished every advanced technology we have today in the last 2%? That’s quite an explosion of knowledge and advancement.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I disagree if we’re talking about the most primitive of accomplishments and if we also see a distinct imbalance in the rate of advancement. 294,000 years to invent something as simple as a wheel, something anyone can easily make in a single day, as compared to 5,500 years to go from the wheel to such advanced technology as space travel, computers, smartphones, satellites, internet, etc, which no one can build in a single day let alone in a single lifetime. You don’t see an imbalance in the rate of progress in technology here? It took 98% of man’s existence to build a simple wheel then he accomplished every advanced technology we have today in the last 2%? That’s quite an explosion of knowledge and advancement.

This is just incredulity on your part. It is what the evidence suggests. Find new evidence that this is wrong or that that your interpretation of your holy book about the earth being 6000 years old is correct and get it published. Otherwise, we'll stick with what we see.

 

[BNR32FAN]

!Kung?

San people rely on farming.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Who did Cain marry again?

His sister, to my knowledge her name is not given.

 

[BNR32FAN]

This is just incredulity on your part.

I could just as easily make the same claim about you. 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]

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

This is a very obtuse approach which is not surprising but Jesus wasn’t sent here to create computers. If man had existed for 294,000 years then I expect that computers would’ve been invented when Jesus came just 2,021 years ago. It’s not surprising that it took almost 6,000 years to invent computers since they require a lot more advanced technologies than a round wooden object that any person can create in a single day. Your comparing the difference between learning how to roll something to how to harness electricity and create advanced circuitry. People can easily see how to roll an object in a natural environment. Drop any round object on a hill and notice what happens. It’s the simplest form of observational science. Drop a rock or a log on a hill compared to how a computer works which is next to unfathomable for even the most educated people of today. Sure most educated people today know how to use them but they have no clue how they work or how to make them despite seeing them inside and out for decades. Do you know anyone who doesn’t know how to make a wheel from scratch? Do you know anyone who does know how to make a computer from scratch?

 

[Aussie Pete]

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

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

How about you provide evidence that life spontaneously arose. You cannot. Because it did not. Because it cannot. Nobody browbeats me. My atheist father tried to convince me that evolution was true. Even as a child it made no sense to me. I was not raised a Christian. I don't have to disprove OOL theories. They fall apart all on their own.