What the?? No way!!!

[Carey]

Please read what I actually said. I did not say that the science of electricity and computers , internet, etc. contradicts the Bible

But you must either accept the whole or none, because all of science is arrived at by the same methodology - eg, observation, hypothesis, more observation.

Both the Big Bang and the theory of being able to put stuff into orbit were theorised in the same way - why can you then cherry pick and say one was right and the other was wrong. Surely you can see that that is a massive leap in probability and logic.

I'm just struggling to see how you, as presumably someone with a non-scientific background - can just sweepingly say that some branches of science are correct and others are wrong - when they all reached in the same way!

I dont sweepingly say anything God does ....

1 Corinthians 3 : 18Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight

2 Corinthians 10 :5We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Colossians 2 : 8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

Are you a Christian??

Jesus taught from the OT Bible and by his own words and example

JOhn 7 : 15The Jews were amazed and asked, "How did this man get such learning without having studied?"
16Jesus answered, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me. 17If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. 18He who speaks on his own does so to gain honor for himself, but he who works for the honor of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him

John 8 : 31To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

James 1 : 5If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; 8he is a double-minded man,

1 Timothy 6 :20Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, 21which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith.
Grace be with you

 

[bunced]

But that doesn't say anything about science does it?

And you still haven't answered the central paradox - you can't post news of a planet that has been discovered without acknowledging the science behind it surely?

 

[Steve Petersen]

Bible verses (interpreted by the reader using their own paradigm) trumps testable scientific processes?

 

[Carey]

But that doesn't say anything about science does it?

And you still haven't answered the central paradox - you can't post news of a planet that has been discovered without acknowledging the science behind it surely?

The " wisdom of this world or age" the Bible refers is science.

And how is that a paradox.As long as the science behind finding a planet does not contradict the word of God it is Godly and not foolish.

Actually sciense and its foolish attempt to prove intelligent life on other planets is proving Gods word correct.

Foolish science will never prove intelligent life on other planets and thereby prove the Bible correct yet again.

“Thy heavens, the work of the Thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which Thou has ordained…Thou dost make him [man] to rule over the works of Thy hands, Thou has put all things under his feet” (Psalms 8:3,6).
“And take heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, you feel driven to worship them and serve them, which the Lord your God has given to all the peoples under the whole heaven as a heritage” (Deuteronomy 4:19).
​

God made the Moon, solar system and stars was to provide a way for us to distinguish the passage of time (days, months and years) and predict the coming of seasons. Without these heavenly bodies, the job of keeping time and navigation would have been far more difficult. We learn from history that from the earliest days, ancient peoples used the movement of stars in producing their calendars and finding their way across great distances, just as God designed from the beginning. It may be that even some migrating birds make use of the constellations.

Another purpose for the myriad of stars is to bring glory to God—focusing man's attention on the Creator's awesome power and greatness. Psalm 19:1 states,

“The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.”

The vastness of the universe is a tremendous expression of God's might and power. God is greater than we could ever imagine, even greater that His spectacular creation, the universe. Psalm 8:1,3,9 states,

“O Lord, our Lord, How majestic is Thy name in all the earth, Who hast displayed Thy splendor above the heavens! …When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, The moon and the stars, which Thou has ordained; …O Lord, our Lord, How majestic is Thy name in all the earth!”
​

 

[Micah68]

What I don't understand is how some people can be so sure of one thing (i.e. prophecy) and not of another (i.e. science)? I think science does an brillant job of showing how awesome the creator is.

 

[GorrionGris]

Bible verses (interpreted by the reader using their own paradigm) trumps testable scientific processes?

Apparently yes.

 

[bunced]

As long as the science behind finding a planet does not contradict the word of God it is Godly and not foolish.

As I have already pointed out, the method they used to determine the make up of the atmosphere is the same as is used as major evidence for the Big Bang

 

[Carey]

Bible verses (interpreted by the reader using their own paradigm) trumps testable scientific processes?

John 7 :
17If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

Acts 8 : 30Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked.
31"How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come

 

[Carey]

As I have already pointed out, the method they used to determine the make up of the atmosphere is the same as is used as major evidence for the Big Bang

And what does that have to do with anything??

science has used the same methods accoring to you for alll science .

Has what science considered fact been preoven wrong before?? Yes

If you the same method to paint a car and a jouse what happens??

 

[Steve Petersen]

Has what science considered fact been preoven wrong before??

Indeed it has; BY OTHER SCIENTISTS USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

 

[bunced]

And what does that have to do with anything??

science has used the same methods accoring to you for alll science .

Has what science considered fact been preoven wrong before?? Yes

If you the same method to paint a car and a jouse what happens??

Please actually read what I say, not what you think I say

Science uses the same methodology - as I keep pointing out, that is come up with a hypothesis, experiment, look at the results, change the hypothesis, repeat . . . .

You seem to be arguing against that which you do not understand. and therefore seem to resorting to rhetoric rather than reason.

Now the method here I'm talking about is the electromagnetic emission released by different elements that says what element they are. Now, looking at what wavelengths of light reach the earth from that planet, scientists can accurately detect what elements are present in the atmosphere.

This is the same concept, when coupled with the theory of red shift, that is one of the major pieces of evidence for the big bang.

Now, where has science been proven wrong?

Well look at particle theory for example. To start with, for a period of about 50 years, scientists thought that the electrons, neutrons and protons were arranged in a kind of Christmas-pudding arrangement, all matter in the middle and no spaces. This view lasted until an experiment (going back to the methodology bit, yes?) was done, firing alpha particles (just 2 protons and 2 neutrons) at a piece of Gold leaf. Rotherfield, who undertook the experiment, noted that whilst the majority passed through, some particles rebounded. This meant that the vast majority of the atoms were space, not matter - the Rutherfield Model. This was then replaced by the Bohr model following further experiements . . . see how this process works?

This is just one example of scientific methodology updating previous science. Therefore, I don't quite understand where you coming from with your slightly cynical statement

I hope this makes things clearer

David

 

[Carey]

What I don't understand is how some people can be so sure of one thing (i.e. prophecy) and not of another (i.e. science)? I think science does an brillant job of showing how awesome the creator is.

I agree and have said that in several posts here.

there is good science and there is foolish science.

It to me is simple to know the difference between the 2.

Is'nt it for you??

 

[Carey]

Indeed it has; BY OTHER SCIENTISTS USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Right ungodly or foolish science was proven wrong by Good or Godly science.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Right ungodly or foolish science was proven wrong by Good or Godly science.

Good science is that which pursues the truth without agenda. It is self correcting.

 

[Carey]

Please actually read what I say, not what you think I say

Science uses the same methodology - as I keep pointing out, that is come up with a hypothesis, experiment, look at the results, change the hypothesis, repeat . . . .

You seem to be arguing against that which you do not understand. and therefore seem to resorting to rhetoric rather than reason.

Now the method here I'm talking about is the electromagnetic emission released by different elements that says what element they are. Now, looking at what wavelengths of light reach the earth from that planet, scientists can accurately detect what elements are present in the atmosphere.

This is the same concept, when coupled with the theory of red shift, that is one of the major pieces of evidence for the big bang.

Now, where has science been proven wrong?

Well look at particle theory for example. To start with, for a period of about 50 years, scientists thought that the electrons, neutrons and protons were arranged in a kind of Christmas-pudding arrangement, all matter in the middle and no spaces. This view lasted until an experiment (going back to the methodology bit, yes?) was done, firing alpha particles (just 2 protons and 2 neutrons) at a piece of Gold leaf. Rotherfield, who undertook the experiment, noted that whilst the majority passed through, some particles rebounded. This meant that the vast majority of the atoms were space, not matter - the Rutherfield Model. This was then replaced by the Bohr model following further experiements . . . see how this process works?

This is just one example of scientific methodology updating previous science. Therefore, I don't quite understand where you coming from with your slightly cynical statement

I hope this makes things clearer

David

The point of this thread is mans science given time will alwats prove the Bible infalible.

The big bamng you keep referring to is simply
Genesis 1 : 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Where the Big Bang will eventually be proven wrong is
on how long it took for the universe to be created.

Here is another "science" on trying to define how old something is alreadt proving itself wrong.
It will only be a matter of time and it will be common knowlege that dinasaurs were not on earth millions of years ago but much more recently.

perhaps the most embarrassing for the proponents of radiocarbon dating. To assume a particular level of Carbon 14 in an organism requires a precise determination of environmental (atmospheric) levels of the same. That is, to presume a particular level in a living thing requires a precise knowledge of the ambient amount of Carbon 14 in the air and environment. Scientists performing radiocarbon dating assume that the amount in the environment has not changed. This is compelling for several reasons, not the least of which is the convenience with which “science” apparently operates; we hear of massive changes in the earth, ice ages, catastrophic events that killed the dinosaurs, etc., but the environment never changed according to the same scientists.
Not only does the requisite level of assumption and presumption all but invalidate the accuracy of the claims of very old dating, but were an example of an environmental phenomenon that affected the level of ambient Carbon 14, the results could be skewed exponentially. In fact, several such phenomena did indeed exist, proven by the same science that supports old-age radiocarbon dating! It would seem quite clear that some predisposition or predilection for particular findings in terms of dating artifacts is at work in this case. For example, consider that it is essentially accepted that an antediluvian water canopy existed surrounding the earth; this would have acted to either negate or at least significantly reduce the effect of cosmic, x-ray, and ultraviolet radiation in the upper atmosphere. Carbon 14 production would have been negligible, and therefore would not have been absorbed by living things; any organism living before the reduction of the canopy would in turn be dated exponentially older than it actually is. Or consider the effect a global atmospheric shield of dust created as a result of a meteor impact some scientists believe killed off the dinosaurs—levels of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere must certainly have been different, thereby invalidating the age/date test data. Isn’t it funny how the same scientists who purport constant catastrophic changes in earth’s history depend upon the inherent necessity that it was completely without any changes?
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=79

 

[Carey]

Good science is that which pursues the truth without agenda. It is self correcting.

I personally believe God would not consider any science that would be persueing an answer to anything that would contradict his word as Goos science.

I believe that would fall into the category of the foolish knowlege of man the Bible refers to.

It would be foolish because it will be incorrect and a waste of time 100% of the time.

 

[bunced]

Where the Big Bang will eventually be proven wrong is on how long it took for the universe to be created.

Fine. I'm interested - how do you propose this might happen? Because you have large amounts of highly credible evidence to overturn, I am interested to see how you might account for it.

Evidence such as Microwave Background Radiation, Red Shift and that allow us to very accurately date the age of the Universe using maths - which is pure proof, surely.

And your critique of carbon dating is a non-starter, sorry. Carbon 14 is an isotope of carbon, and will always occur in moreorless identical quantities all over the world at any point in time because that is the nature of isotopes. We can check Carbon Dioxide levels, which are the reference point you're right you need, in the atmosphere by looking at rocks and stalagmites. We can in turn age these through other geological processes. Therefore, carbon dating is perfectly accurate as far back as 45,000 years.

Again, that is an argument based on seizing something without fully understanding the science behind it!

And as it has been pointed out to you countless times, science is impartial - neither good or bad. It is just based on methodology and reason. Therefore, the concept of "good science" as you are promoting it is flawed, because both science that agrees with the Bible and science that doesn't are based on the same methodology!

 

[Steve Petersen]

I personally believe God would not consider any science that would be persueing an answer to anything that would contradict his word as Goos science.

I believe that would fall into the category of the foolish knowlege of man the Bible refers to.

It would be foolish because it will be incorrect and a waste of time 100% of the time.

Contradiction is in the mind of the reader. There is no acknowledged standard of Bible interpetation within Christianity.

 

[Carey]

Contradiction is in the mind of the reader. There is no acknowledged standard of Bible interpetation within Christianity.

I guess that depends on your definition or interpretation of what "Christianity" is.

 

[Carey]

Fine. I'm interested - how do you propose this might happen? Because you have large amounts of highly credible evidence to overturn, I am interested to see how you might account for it.

Evidence such as Microwave Background Radiation, Red Shift and that allow us to very accurately date the age of the Universe using maths - which is pure proof, surely.

And your critique of carbon dating is a non-starter, sorry. Carbon 14 is an isotope of carbon, and will always occur in moreorless identical quantities all over the world at any point in time because that is the nature of isotopes. We can check Carbon Dioxide levels, which are the reference point you're right you need, in the atmosphere by looking at rocks and stalagmites. We can in turn age these through other geological processes. Therefore, carbon dating is perfectly accurate as far back as 45,000 years.

Again, that is an argument based on seizing something without fully understanding the science behind it!

And as it has been pointed out to you countless times, science is impartial - neither good or bad. It is just based on methodology and reason. Therefore, the concept of "good science" as you are promoting it is flawed, because both science that agrees with the Bible and science that doesn't are based on the same methodology!

If science wanted to never waste time it should be very partial. Science should before undertaking any project first think if it in anyway would contradict the Bible.
If if could don't waste time on it and work on a project that will not eventually prove itself wrong.
The saved time could be use to truly further science in record time.

How do we know the this understanding of "Red Shift " and how it helps us understand the age of the Universe
is accurate??
WHAT if the big bang never happened? Ask cosmologists this and they'll usually
tell you it is a stupid question. The evidence, after all, is written in the
heavens. Take the way galaxies are scattered across the sky, or witness the
fading afterglow of the big bang fireball. Even the way the atoms in your body
have come into being over the eons. They are all smoking guns that point to the
existence 13.7 billion years ago of an ultra-hot, ultra-dense state known as
the big bang.

Or are they? A small band of researchers is starting to ask the question no one
is supposed to ask. Last week the dissidents met to review the evidence at the
first ever Crisis in Cosmology conference in Monção, Portugal. There they argued
that cosmologists' most cherished theory of the universe fails to explain certain
crucial observations. If they are right, the universe could be a lot weirder than
anyone imagined. But before venturing that idea, say the dissidents, it is time
for some serious investigation into the big bang's validity and its alternatives

Mordehai Milgrom has proven Eibstein and Newtons theories incorrect such as the believed existence of dark
matter.

The Einstein Dilemma | Dark Matter | DISCOVER Magazine
Mordehai Milgrom's new physics could overthrow Newton and Einstein--and tear up our whole picture ... the fundamental relationship between mass and gravity. ...
discovermagazine.com/2006/aug/cover - 44k - Similar pages

How do we know that our understanding of the nature of Isotopes is correct.

To say carbon 14 levels in the atmosphere on earth 6000 years ago is silly to assume what we understand on that is correct since we can't get things like dark matter strait.