Why are so many Christians vehemently opposed to Science?

[Spin Master]

I live in Alabama and I noticed that I'm able to talk about almost every major school subject with complete ease and comfort. History, English, Math--no problem whatsoever. But when I start to touch the surface of Science, people look at me as if something's wrong with me.

When I talk about dinosaurs, they want to end the conversation.

When I talk about anything outside of the solar system, they start to deny basic information that is taught in 6th grade.

When I talk about what telescopes have been able to glimpse in the last 60 years, they completely deny the authenticity of those photographs.

When I tell them I watch the Science channel sometimes, they almost laugh to my face.

Everything else is perfectly okay to talk about but when I talk about anything scientific, it's just too much for them. Why? What is the big deal?

I realize there are theories they disagree with but why close their minds to common sense? There is mounting evidence that proves Metaphysics to be a valid branch of Science, there are dinosaur bones buried all of the world, scientists have been able to use the information they gathered to predict the movements of stars and planets with near-perfect precision, and some of the world's best inventions were created as a result of scientific research. We are adults, right? Why persist in showing disdain for these things?

[drbob]

Why are so many "scientists" so vehemently opposed to religion?

[Semi-Sweet]

I live in Alabama and I noticed that I'm able to talk about almost every major school subject with complete ease and comfort. History, English, Math--no problem whatsoever. But when I start to touch the surface of Science, people look at me as if something's wrong with me.

When I talk about dinosaurs, they want to end the conversation.

When I talk about anything outside of the solar system, they start to deny basic information that is taught in 6th grade.

When I talk about what telescopes have been able to glimpse in the last 60 years, they completely deny the authenticity of those photographs.

When I tell them I watch the Science channel sometimes, they almost laugh to my face.

Everything else is perfectly okay to talk about but when I talk about anything scientific, it's just too much for them. Why? What is the big deal?

I realize there are theories they disagree with but why close their minds to common sense? There is mounting evidence that proves Metaphysics to be a valid branch of Science, there are dinosaur bones buried all of the world, scientists have been able to use the information they gathered to predict the movements of stars and planets with near-perfect precision, and some of the world's best inventions were created as a result of scientific research. We are adults, right? Why persist in showing disdain for these things?

This disciple believes that science and the Bible go hand in hand. The word 'science' means 'to know.' I don't believe that there is anything that can be discovered as fact will contradict one syllable of the Bible.

[Oddball]

Rand proffered that science and religion were two sides of the same coin.

You don't need to look any further than gullible warming doomsayers to find that evidence.

[Fig Tree]

My friend,

I do not think it is that we oppose science, on the contrary, most of the leaders of the scientific fields were devote Christians. The issue is imposing evolution as scientific law. There is no proof, otherwise it would be a law by now, don't you think? In fact, the further scientist study evolution, the further it falls apart. String Theory is a fascinating study which I believe will lead more and more into the basis of creation. The word...speech...sound...God spoke and it was so...as scientist dive into the smaller and smaller elements of matter, they find that the disorder that is there is vibrating on a constant wave...all matter...the wave appears to be very similar to a sound wave in shape...why? And also why is that wave of different particles affected by sound itself? God created us in his image and likeness. He gave us the stars to look upon in amazement and wonder, and he took care to give us that same amazement and wonder when we look inward. True Science confirms his presence in all things...

[Spin Master]

This disciple believes that science and the Bible go hand in hand. The word 'science' means 'to know.' I don't believe that there is anything that can be discovered as fact will contradict one syllable of the Bible.

According to most of the Scientific community, there is an extremely high probability that life exists on other planets throughout the universe--somewhere between 98 to 100%. My Minister friend is completely convinced that this is impossible because the Bible says that God created man and man alone in his own image.

Who's right and who's wrong?

[meggers49]

I am not opposed to science. I work in a science field. What I am opposed to is people who take a piece of information and extrapolate and synthesize it into a whole and proclaim it fact.

To say they KNOW about many things is the height of arrogance. They make educated guesses, and some with good reason, but as we learn from what "experts say", that often changes years later, examples, women are better off using HRT after menopause, they are finding that is not true, eggs are bad for us, they are finding that's not true. I'm pretty sure I heard that the north pole's ice cap was going to be gone this year, that's not true.

Scientific opinion would be easier to take seriously if they'd use the phrase, "we think" rather than "we know". When science proves what it's saying, I have no problem believing them.

Dismissal from either quarter, out of hand, is foolish.

[Spin Master]

My friend,

I do not think it is that we oppose science, on the contrary, most of the leaders of the scientific fields were devote Christians. The issue is imposing evolution as scientific law. There is no proof, otherwise it would be a law by now, don't you think? In fact, the further scientist study evolution, the further it falls apart.

Why do animals that live in certain geographic regions have bodies and traits that are favorable to those environments? When a species is exposed to two different environments, why are its ancestors in the different environments different from the original species millions of years later?

If the answer is "natural selection," doesn't that only help the case for Evolution when we're talking about time spans ranging millions of years?

[Fig Tree]

You speaking of traits of animals...that is not natural selection...that is adaptation. Where is the proof that an entire species has changed into another species under scientific observation? How did flowering plants evolve, and from what? If we are evolving into more complex organism...why do we have 48 chromosomes and a fern have 480? Maybe we evolved from the lesser triplets of 22 chromosomes (the possum, redrood tree, or kidney bean).

[Spin Master]

You speaking of traits of animals...that is not natural selection...that is adaptation. Where is the proof that an entire species has changed into another species under scientific observation? How did flowering plants evolve, and from what? If we are evolving into more complex organism...why do we have 48 chromosomes and a fern have 480? Maybe we evolved from the lesser triplets of 22 chromosomes (the possum, redrood tree, or kidney bean).

No one can prove that Saber Tooth tigers appeared suddenly out of thin air or whether the tigers with longer canines had higher chances of survival and subsequent reproduction. No one can prove either of those two scenarios but one harmonizes easier with the observable idea that living cells have higher chances of survival in environments that are most favorable to them.

[Semi-Sweet]

According to most of the Scientific community, there is an extremely high probability that life exists on other planets throughout the universe--somewhere between 98 to 100%. My Minister friend is completely convinced that this is impossible because the Bible says that God created man and man alone in his own image.

Who's right and who's wrong?

And all this time I thought that the scientific community mentioned life on other planets just to annoy Christians. :mrgreen:

Find that life on other planets and then ask that question. . .K?

[Spin Master]

And all this time I thought that the scientific community mentioned life on other planets just to annoy Christians. :mrgreen:

Find that life on other planets and then ask that question. . .K?

Is it really impossible that a planet out of trillions of planets can't be the right distance from a star out of trillions of stars to have liquid water? Think about the odds of something like that being true.

There's more stars in this galaxy alone than there are grains of sand on the earth. There are more galaxies than what the human mind can reasonably perceive. Now again, think about the odds of a planet being the right distance from a star to have liquid water--the precursor for life, including bacteria and simple cell organisms.

Honestly, the only feasible counter-argument, in terms of Religion, is that the stars in the sky are just an illusion created by God to test our faith. Are you willing to say that this foregoing statement is more likely to be true?

[Conservatismfirst]

Why do animals that live in certain geographic regions have bodies and traits that are favorable to those environments? When a species is exposed to two different environments, why are its ancestors in the different environments different from the original species millions of years later?

If the answer is "natural selection," doesn't that only help the case for Evolution when we're talking about time spans ranging millions of years?


Great thread! I have multiple degrees in Accounting and Physical Therapy and now working on a Nursing Degree ( I guess I go to college for fun). I have taken many classes on Anatomy, Physiology, Chemistry, Physics, Pharmacology, Pathophysiology and Kinesiology so I consider myself to be above average intelligence and have significant life experience at age 35.

Not that I want to give my entire testimony but prior to being saved I read magazines that heralded looking at EVERYTHING from a purely "scientific" manner. I once read an article entitled The Science of Beauty that attempted to say that we are influenced by smell, certain types of feminine or masculine jaw lines, large eyes vs. smaller eyes, etc. At the time I bought right into it...even though at the end they stated that most people find an "average looking person" just as attractive as what they termed "The hyperfemale" or extremely attractive female. What I'm saying is, now in retrospect since I was savedI realized that whole article was just talking in circles and anyone with common sense could have said the same thing.

I could also assault the ADHD meds pumped into children these days. I have ADHD, depression, Bipolar Disorder, and many other disorders...if I want to at any time should I choose to not use the common sense "SELF CONTROL".

The above two examples of science that is simply out of control and common sense that has been left in the dust. In response to your question above, there is no doubt that animals can and will adapt to their environment. Millions of years? Carbon dating is done assuming that Carbon has always broken down at the same pace as today. With that in mind I'm not convinced that bones are millions of years old. Also, evolution assumes that fish turned into birds, etc. over time yet there has been no evidence of bones found to support this...why?

If you are willing to really look at it from both sides as I have, check out http://www.creationmuseum.org/ and The Language of God by Francis S. Collins (The head of the Human Genome Project, the one that mapped genes of humans under Bill Clinton) or you could see Ben Steins Movie about the subject.

I think you living in Alabama may offer some light as to why they are afraid. Many God believing people have lost faith or feel threatened since science has pushed the idea that there is no God. Only in the last several years has the ship started to right itself and scientists are starting to speak up. These people in Alabama probably are unaware of this.

The most compelling of all is. Most all of science has been done with the preconcieved notion that there is no God and little science has been done starting at the point of there being a God and going from there. I hope this helps. You must humble yourself to see the truth, humans ego and pride is so big you'll miss it unless you wholy humble yourself.

[terri910]

Why are so many innocent strawmen constructed for no other reason than to be destroyed?




It's a crazy world.

[RayMan]

According to most of the Scientific community, there is an extremely high probability that life exists on other planets throughout the universe--somewhere between 98 to 100%. My Minister friend is completely convinced that this is impossible because the Bible says that God created man and man alone in his own image.

Who's right and who's wrong?

I don't recall reading that last bit in the Bible. I would be very surprised to find that we were the only sentient life form in the universe.

[Hadassah]

I live in Alabama and I noticed that I'm able to talk about almost every major school subject with complete ease and comfort. History, English, Math--no problem whatsoever. But when I start to touch the surface of Science, people look at me as if something's wrong with me.

When I talk about dinosaurs, they want to end the conversation.

When I talk about anything outside of the solar system, they start to deny basic information that is taught in 6th grade.

When I talk about what telescopes have been able to glimpse in the last 60 years, they completely deny the authenticity of those photographs.

When I tell them I watch the Science channel sometimes, they almost laugh to my face.

Everything else is perfectly okay to talk about but when I talk about anything scientific, it's just too much for them. Why? What is the big deal?

I realize there are theories they disagree with but why close their minds to common sense? There is mounting evidence that proves Metaphysics to be a valid branch of Science, there are dinosaur bones buried all of the world, scientists have been able to use the information they gathered to predict the movements of stars and planets with near-perfect precision, and some of the world's best inventions were created as a result of scientific research. We are adults, right? Why persist in showing disdain for these things?



Tell them that some great scientifc discoveries were made by Christians. Maybe that'll change their minds. :mrgreen:

[Spin Master]

Great thread! I have multiple degrees in Accounting and Physical Therapy and now working on a Nursing Degree ( I guess I go to college for fun). I have taken many classes on Anatomy, Physiology, Chemistry, Physics, Pharmacology, Pathophysiology and Kinesiology so I consider myself to be above average intelligence and have significant life experience at age 35.

Not that I want to give my entire testimony but prior to being saved I read magazines that heralded looking at EVERYTHING from a purely "scientific" manner. I once read an article entitled The Science of Beauty that attempted to say that we are influenced by smell, certain types of feminine or masculine jaw lines, large eyes vs. smaller eyes, etc. At the time I bought right into it...even though at the end they stated that most people find an "average looking person" just as attractive as what they termed "The hyperfemale" or extremely attractive female. What I'm saying is, now in retrospect since I was savedI realized that whole article was just talking in circles and anyone with common sense could have said the same thing.

I could also assault the ADHD meds pumped into children these days. I have ADHD, depression, Bipolar Disorder, and many other disorders...if I want to at any time should I choose to not use the common sense "SELF CONTROL".

The above two examples of science that is simply out of control and common sense that has been left in the dust. In response to your question above, there is no doubt that animals can and will adapt to their environment. Millions of years? Carbon dating is done assuming that Carbon has always broken down at the same pace as today. With that in mind I'm not convinced that bones are millions of years old. Also, evolution assumes that fish turned into birds, etc. over time yet there has been no evidence of bones found to support this...why?

If you are willing to really look at it from both sides as I have, check out http://www.creationmuseum.org/ and The Language of God by Francis S. Collins (The head of the Human Genome Project, the one that mapped genes of humans under Bill Clinton) or you could see Ben Steins Movie about the subject.

I think you living in Alabama may offer some light as to why they are afraid. Many God believing people have lost faith or feel threatened since science has pushed the idea that there is no God. Only in the last several years has the ship started to right itself and scientists are starting to speak up. These people in Alabama probably are unaware of this.

The most compelling of all is. Most all of science has been done with the preconcieved notion that there is no God and little science has been done starting at the point of there being a God and going from there. I hope this helps. You must humble yourself to see the truth, humans ego and pride is so big you'll miss it unless you wholy humble yourself.

I don't take anyone's opinion at face value without thinking about it first. I wouldn't have taken that article seriously because I know that people in different civilizations are attracted by different things--things that are perceived as unusual to us which is to be expected.

ADHD medication is over-prescribed in America because many of those people don't consider other causes of the symptoms they're trying to treat.

And people are more narrow-minded than they think, including you and me. We probably don't know .00001% of what there is to know. And if we did know, it would be quite a humbling experience for most of us.

The best that we can do is deal with the information and evidence that is presented to us and hypothesize ideas that most easily harmonize with observable truths.

[biggles53]

You speaking of traits of animals...that is not natural selection...that is adaptation. Where is the proof that an entire species has changed into another species under scientific observation?

I'd be happy to show you some evidence (not "proof" - scientific theories don't operate on proof), as soon as you give me your definition of what a "species" is...?

How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?

Have you studied any basic biology...?

If we are evolving into more complex organism...why do we have 48 chromosomes and a fern have 480? Maybe we evolved from the lesser triplets of 22 chromosomes (the possum, redrood tree, or kidney bean).

What does chromosome count have to do with complexity...? Are you aware that an amoeba has a greater chromosome count than we do...!?

[Fig Tree]

We cannot accurately measure the distance from our planet beyond 100 of our term of measurement in light years. Trigonometry is used to measure the distance based on points of observation. This is basically trying to measure the distance of a straight line when we look at the stars. All of this is based on the presumption also that the speed of light is constant. Light varies as it travels through various mediums such as a prism, the atmosphere, etc. Particle scientist in America have claimed they have broken the unbreakable barrier the speed of light by accelerating particles to 300 times the speed of light of 186,000 mps. There is so much we do not know about particle physics. This is the field that will answer all our questions. The more we study in that field the more we see God's voice in all things.

When lift is confirmed on another planet or system, let us this speculate that there is life elsewhere.

Scientist have put to test adaptation and natural selection. They have noted that a species can adapt to an environment in as little as one generation. Yet they still have been unable to produce an adaptation that led to a new species that reproduced itself.

I respect you faith in these things, however, I just would like you to look at it objectively vice subjectively. As I was going through science classes in school before I accepted Christ as Lord of my life, I always had to have the burden of proof in all things. If we are evolving continuously (all things at all times) we should have a representative sample of every step of the evolutionary process even today. We still have single cell organisms today. We still have fungus. We still have monkeys and chimpanzees. Where is the bond that ties them all together?

[Semi-Sweet]

Is it really impossible that a planet out of trillions of planets can't be the right distance from a star out of trillions of stars to have liquid water? Think about the odds of something like that being true.

There's more stars in this galaxy alone than there are grains of sand on the earth. There are more galaxies than what the human mind can reasonably perceive. Now again, think about the odds of a planet being the right distance from a star to have liquid water--the precursor for life, including bacteria and simple cell organisms.

Honestly, the only feasible counter-argument, in terms of Religion, is that the stars in the sky are just an illusion created by God to test our faith. Are you willing to say that this foregoing statement is more likely to be true?

It is odd that you would somewhat quote Genesis. . . .

Genesis 22:17 "That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which [is] upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;" KJV

3500 years ago the writer of Genesis knew by the inspiration of God that the stars were numerous and mentioned them in relation to the grains of sand. Go figure.


ONLY A CREATOR GOD MAKES SENSE OF THINGS

A child looks into the heavens through a powerful telescope and is moved with delight over the magnificence of the star-spangled sky. Endowed with childlike faith, he is not threatened by the imponderables. He has an answer, if he needs one, for the God his mother tells him of is behind it all. God hung the stars, he explains, so he moves along in a world that makes sense, even when it is inexplicable. In his simple way he accepts the universe as a gift to be enjoyed, and he doesn’t have to be bothered with too many answers.

An agnostic scientist looks through the same telescope at the universe and is challenged to take control. He must explain what he sees, even if his answers are hypothetical. But he must not only explain what he sees, but manipulate it as well. He thinks only in naturalistic or scientific terms, never in transcendental or supernatural terms. The only “faith” he considers is whatever faith he may have in his methods. Unlike the child, he is not awed, only challenged. There is no God, no creator, in the drama, and so it makes no sense. But this he can never admit, for then he loses control. He must make sense of it, if not in one way then in another, and so he turns to what he calls science.

Scientific man, as contrasted to the man of faith (a scientist can of course be a man of faith), presumes sovereignty over nature, and so he becomes a creator of sorts, projecting upon the world the image he has of the world. Like the playwright that plots the story the way he wants it to go, the scientific man creates a world that he can explain. He has a manageable world in that it reflects the kind of world he sees it to be. But no such world exists, for there are yawning gaps between the world that he experiences and the world that lies beyond his experience. He seeks security for his future by manipulating the world, through such techniques as nuclear physics and bioengineering, only to be threatened with destruction by his own creations.

He presumes that the world was made for man rather than that man was made for the world. Man tries to force the universe to conform to his behavior, whether in the recesses of outer space or the vast domain of human genes, rather than conforming his behavior to that of the universe. Instead of allowing the heavens to declare the glory of a creator God, man uses the heavens to declare his own presumed glory.

This is the essence of secularistic humanism, which views man and the world strictly in naturalistic terms. It says that life is to be lived as if there is no God.

Leroy Garrett

[Deak2112]

To the OP, I am a creationist christian. I love science too. Science and the Bible agree with each other a heck of a lot of times. Christians will mostly have problems with evolution and abiogenesis. I won't deny that gravity is a force or that fire "breathes" oxygen or that there is 6 feet of DNA in each cell nucleus.

[Spin Master]

Particle scientist in America have claimed they have broken the unbreakable barrier the speed of light by accelerating particles to 300 times the speed of light of 186,000 mps.

I'd be very interested so see an article that says this. I have never heard of anything moving 300 times the speed of light.

When lift is confirmed on another planet or system, let us this speculate that there is life elsewhere.

Why would people speculate after it is confirmed? The whole point of speculating is to review something that has an element of doubt. And that element of doubt says that only one planet out of trillions of planets in the billions of galaxies in the universe has liquid water.

Scientist have put to test adaptation and natural selection. They have noted that a species can adapt to an environment in as little as one generation. Yet they still have been unable to produce an adaptation that led to a new species that reproduced itself.

Define your definition of species.

If we are evolving continuously (all things at all times) we should have a representative sample of every step of the evolutionary process even today. We still have single cell organisms today. We still have fungus. We still have monkeys and chimpanzees. Where is the bond that ties them all together?


Basically, you're saying that if the theory of evolution is true, organisms that evolved into other organisms should cease to exist...even when the division of environments is taken into consideration?

[pinqy]

The issue is imposing evolution as scientific law.There has never been a single law requiring evolution to be taught, but there have been laws forbidding it and laws requiring Creationism/ID to be taught. So on what basis is Evolution being imposed?

There is no proof, otherwise it would be a law by now, don't you think?
Ummm no. Theories don't become laws...that's not how it works. Theories and Laws are seperate things.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I live in Alabama


Well, THERE'S your problem. Right there.

[Constantine the Great]

When I talk about dinosaurs, they want to end the conversation.

When I talk about anything outside of the solar system, they start to deny basic information that is taught in 6th grade.

When I talk about what telescopes have been able to glimpse in the last 60 years, they completely deny the authenticity of those photographs.

When I tell them I watch the Science channel sometimes, they almost laugh to my face.

I could only hazard a guess; perhaps if those who are of a strictly scientific bent didn't criticize those with spiritual beliefs so much, perhaps there would be less suspicion of those who profess to be "sience only" or scientifically minded. Personally, while I've been more of a history/literature/philsophy/politics kind of person, science has always intrigued me. Science channel is good stuff.

[Constantine the Great]

According to most of the Scientific community, there is an extremely high probability that life exists on other planets throughout the universe--somewhere between 98 to 100%. My Minister friend is completely convinced that this is impossible because the Bible says that God created man and man alone in his own image.

Who's right and who's wrong?

I'd say your pastor is wrong for confining the Almighty God in a box. The Bible speaks of THIS humanity, on THIS earth, and it relationship with Him. The Bible doesn't say that God DIDN'T create life somewhere else. I don't think telling Moses about other beings in Alpha Centauri would have helped him in his dealings with Pharaoh would it have?

[catholic-citizen]

There are a number of creationists out there; people who literally believe the world was created in 6 days, some 6000 years or so ago...I can never keep track, but someone actually went through the Bible and counted. I am a very devout man, but I understand the use of allegory in the Bible. This is not to say that what is in the Bible is fiction - far from it - but I think that it uses language that is couched in terms that humans can relate to. Especially pre-scientific people.

I am becoming a strong proponent of Intelligent Design. I like the idea that God set the 'clock in motion', that He guides and nurtures us, but that we have freedom. It is elegant, explains much that is difficult to explain in creationism, and fills a huge gap in the concept of evolution. Sure, one can trace things back pretty far with this THEORY, but where it stops short, it stops abruptly. Science cannot explain the 'first spark', and frankly, leading evolution proponents theories are so outrageous that the idea of a Creator is hardly the most unlikely.

My problem with Creationism is that it is a doctrine of pre-determination and pre-destination. There is no Free Will in a creationist world. God is the clockmaker and puppetmaster all rolled into one. There is a lot of baggage that I find unattractive in Creationism and I think that this hurts those who espouse intelligent design.

[Frazzled]

I love this scene from "Friends" it pretty much sums up my feelings..... :mrgreen:

ROSS: Ok, Phoebe, this is it. In this briefcase I carry actual scientific facts. A briefcase of facts, if you will. Some of these fossils are over 200 million years old.

PHOEBE: Ok, look, before you even start, I'm not denying evolution, ok, I'm just saying that it's one of the possibilities.

ROSS: It's the only possibility, Phoebe.

PHOEBE: Ok, Ross, could you just open your mind like this much, ok? Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the world was flat? And, up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess of crap came out. Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?

[drbob]

Ummm no. Theories don't become laws...that's not how it works. Theories and Laws are seperate things.


A theory does become a law when indisputable evidence is presented to confirm the validity, exclusivity, and repeatability/reproducibility of the theory.

[Semi-Sweet]

i love this scene from "friends" it pretty much sums up my feelings..... :mrgreen:

Ross: Ok, phoebe, this is it. In this briefcase i carry actual scientific facts. A briefcase of facts, if you will. Some of these fossils are over 200 million years old.

Phoebe: Ok, look, before you even start, i'm not denying evolution, ok, i'm just saying that it's one of the possibilities.

Ross: It's the only possibility, phoebe.

Phoebe: Ok, ross, could you just open your mind like this much, ok? Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the world was flat? And, up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess of crap came out. Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?

:)) :)) :))

[drbob]

There are a number of creationists out there; people who literally believe the world was created in 6 days, some 6000 years or so ago...I can never keep track, but someone actually went through the Bible and counted. I am a very devout man, but I understand the use of allegory in the Bible. This is not to say that what is in the Bible is fiction - far from it - but I think that it uses language that is couched in terms that humans can relate to. Especially pre-scientific people.

I am becoming a strong proponent of Intelligent Design. I like the idea that God set the 'clock in motion', that He guides and nurtures us, but that we have freedom. It is elegant, explains much that is difficult to explain in creationism, and fills a huge gap in the concept of evolution. Sure, one can trace things back pretty far with this THEORY, but where it stops short, it stops abruptly. Science cannot explain the 'first spark', and frankly, leading evolution proponents theories are so outrageous that the idea of a Creator is hardly the most unlikely.

My problem with Creationism is that it is a doctrine of pre-determination and pre-destination. There is no Free Will in a creationist world. God is the clockmaker and puppetmaster all rolled into one. There is a lot of baggage that I find unattractive in Creationism and I think that this hurts those who espouse intelligent design.


2Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Your second point regarding pre-determination and pre-destination are viewpoints broadly held by Calvinists. I don't believe that these viewpoints necessarily are broadly held among Creationists. I consider myself a Creationist who is strongly a proponent of Free Will. Furthermore, I don't claim to know how long God took to create the earth (see 2Peter 3:8 above). God is not the one bound by time, man is.

[Mobulis]

I love this scene from "Friends" it pretty much sums up my feelings..... :mrgreen:

ROSS: Ok, Phoebe, this is it. In this briefcase I carry actual scientific facts. A briefcase of facts, if you will. Some of these fossils are over 200 million years old.

PHOEBE: Ok, look, before you even start, I'm not denying evolution, ok, I'm just saying that it's one of the possibilities.

ROSS: It's the only possibility, Phoebe.

PHOEBE: Ok, Ross, could you just open your mind like this much, ok? Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the world was flat? And, up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess of crap came out. Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?

Any scientist will admit he's wrong IF you have credible evidence proving that he may be wrong.

[pinqy]

A theory does become a law when indisputable evidence is presented to confirm the validity, exclusivity, and repeatability/reproducibility of the theory.
NO, it doesn't. A Law is descriptive: it is a usually mathematical description of what occurs and what will always occur (given the assumed parameters). A theory, on the other hand, is an explanation of why and how things happen. The theory of evolution and germ theory can never become laws because they are too complex and variable to say precisely what will happen under given circumstances. That doesn't mean they're not supported, valid, exclusive etc, just that they're not simple inpu/output.

[AeroEngineer]

My friend,

I do not think it is that we oppose science, on the contrary, most of the leaders of the scientific fields were devote Christians. The issue is imposing evolution as scientific law. There is no proof, otherwise it would be a law by now, don't you think? In fact, the further scientist study evolution, the further it falls apart. String Theory is a fascinating study which I believe will lead more and more into the basis of creation. The word...speech...sound...God spoke and it was so...as scientist dive into the smaller and smaller elements of matter, they find that the disorder that is there is vibrating on a constant wave...all matter...the wave appears to be very similar to a sound wave in shape...why? And also why is that wave of different particles affected by sound itself? God created us in his image and likeness. He gave us the stars to look upon in amazement and wonder, and he took care to give us that same amazement and wonder when we look inward. True Science confirms his presence in all things...


String theory is just fun math, its not science for the same reason creationism isn't.

Watch:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/media2/3012_q_08.html

[Alaric]

I don't believe that there is anything that can be discovered as fact will contradict one syllable of the Bible.

We've sent expeditions down under all the way to the pole, and they haven't seen the pillar. We've orbited satellites under the Earth, and they haven't run into a pillar yet.

Pi has been proven to be an irrational transcendental number ~3.1415926, not 3.0, which is neither irrational nor transcendental.

[Jagergeist]

Science is the reason I can never believe in a god or gods. Science is tangible. Science can be observed, studied, quantified and experimented. Scientific hypothesis, theory and law interact and are expanded on by legends. The gods all have one thing in common, there is no tangibility to them. When a god, be it Allah, Jesus, Odin, Thor or whomever decides to come to Earth with something I can see and quantify then I would be interested in listening to what they have to say.

[Jagergeist]

I live in Alabama and I noticed that I'm able to talk about almost every major school subject with complete ease and comfort. History, English, Math--no problem whatsoever. But when I start to touch the surface of Science, people look at me as if something's wrong with me.

When I talk about dinosaurs, they want to end the conversation.

When I talk about anything outside of the solar system, they start to deny basic information that is taught in 6th grade.

When I talk about what telescopes have been able to glimpse in the last 60 years, they completely deny the authenticity of those photographs.

When I tell them I watch the Science channel sometimes, they almost laugh to my face.

Everything else is perfectly okay to talk about but when I talk about anything scientific, it's just too much for them. Why? What is the big deal?

I realize there are theories they disagree with but why close their minds to common sense? There is mounting evidence that proves Metaphysics to be a valid branch of Science, there are dinosaur bones buried all of the world, scientists have been able to use the information they gathered to predict the movements of stars and planets with near-perfect precision, and some of the world's best inventions were created as a result of scientific research. We are adults, right? Why persist in showing disdain for these things?

Not making a snide comment about the south, but is the answer possibly that you are talking about this with people from Alabama? I know several Christians in Illinois and I have never heard them say nonsense like the dinosaurs did not exist or the Grand Canyon was caused by Noah's flood. They all seem to be realistic, believing in their God yet understanding you can't refute solid science just because it fits your religious belief. I know the Bible belt is notorious for fundamental beliefs and, shall we say, a lesser interest in formal education. I would guess that's the answer.

[texan_rep]

A theory does become a law when indisputable evidence is presented to confirm the validity, exclusivity, and repeatability/reproducibility of the theory.


uhhhhhhh...wrong.

[Mountaineer]

The question - "Why are so many Christians vehemently opposed to Science?" The reason this Christian is opposed to Science is simple, it is a Lie.

We are told we have evolved from monkeys. I ask those who believe this "lie" one question. If we evolved from monkeys, WHY are there still monkeys?

[Koushi Shinigami]

The question - "Why are so many Christians vehemently opposed to Science?" The reason this Christian is opposed to Science is simple, it is a Lie.

We are told we have evolved from monkeys. I ask those who believe this "lie" one question. If we evolved from monkeys, WHY are there still monkeys?

Science did a pretty good job with that 'lie' you are typing upon right now.

[Greyclouds]

NO, it doesn't. A Law is descriptive: it is a usually mathematical description of what occurs and what will always occur (given the assumed parameters). A theory, on the other hand, is an explanation of why and how things happen. The theory of evolution and germ theory can never become laws because they are too complex and variable to say precisely what will happen under given circumstances. That doesn't mean they're not supported, valid, exclusive etc, just that they're not simple inpu/output.

You are exactly, 100% correct.

For instance, we currently have a THEORY of gravitation, and a THEORY about the Atomic nature of Chemistry.

There are LAWS about specific facets of Thermodynamics, but these are so much more specific than a Theory ever could be.

[pinqy]

The question - "Why are so many Christians vehemently opposed to Science?" The reason this Christian is opposed to Science is simple, it is a Lie.

We are told we have evolved from monkeys. I ask those who believe this "lie" one question. If we evolved from monkeys, WHY are there still monkeys?
You're not serious, are you? Please tell me that you're not that ignorant of even the most basic ideas of the theory of evolution.

[Koushi Shinigami]

We are told we have evolved from monkeys. I ask those who believe this "lie" one question. If we evolved from monkeys, WHY are there still monkeys?

You say that in the past tense, as if the process was complete. It only takes a short trip out in public to realize that is not the case.

[Greyclouds]

(so tempted to respond to the anti-evolution posts to clear up the misconceptions!! But I won't :D. This is a running offer: If you'd like to talk to a Geneticist about the Theory of Evolution, please set up a thread in the General Interest forum or send me a PM. I'd be happy to show you all of the molecular biology about the Theory and how far it has progressed since Darwin's Origin of Species.)

To the OP:

I don't believe that many Christians are vehemently opposed to science; they just do not understand it, yet believe that they do. Keep in mind, as well, that there are many Christians who DO have an excellent knowledge of scientific material and maintain a spiritual belief system; I am not talking about them in this post, and I admire their existential philosophy in this regard.



I have met many many intelligent, successful, and worldly Christians in my life. I understand that they have a SPIRITUAL side and a RATIONAL side.


Let me explain further. They believe in concepts that they will NEVER tangibly experience, yet at the same time, they focus FAR MORE on the physical material present in their immediate lives. Their justification for this seeming contradiction in logic is summed up in the word, "FAITH." Faith - to them - is the ultimate glue by which all things can be rationalized. Bad things happen to you while you were doing good for the less fortunate? Have faith that God will make it all up to you later. Scared about the unknown experience of death? Have faith that God will be there later.

Faith is the panacea by which some people conquer their fears, apprehensions and questions about the world. Faith also - as a side-effect - provides PURPOSE to existence.


Science will never answer philosophical questions that many people of faith seek answers to. WHY are we here? Certain Christian sects provide a DEFINITE answer: "we are God's toys, created to keep him amused. If we die and we are favored by God, we will be rewarded by him." Scientific theories, BY DEFINITION, can only speak in terms of statistical likelihood: "it is likely that organic molecules were created in the Earth's early atmosphere that could self-assemble without direction. Given the modular nature of the process, and the ability for successful combinations to be reproduced without intelligent direction, it is likely that a nucleic acid molecule was encapsulated into a lipid micelle and became the first proto-lifeform (Theory of Abiogenesis)."

If you didn't study college level Biology and Chemistry, which would you choose? The seemingly definite answer? Or the answer that seems "shifty," in order to cover all ends?

[Mikko]

Why are so many "scientists" so vehemently opposed to religion?
They don't like people trying to control their minds.:)

[Marshall]

Any scientist will admit he's wrong IF you have credible evidence proving that he may be wrong.

I wish that were true. Today, science is more about politics and research funding than the scientific method. The man made Global Warming issue is a case in point. Anyone who speaks out against the political consensus is shunned as if an article of faith had been blasphemed. It is more religious in it's zeal than most religions.

[Greyclouds]

I wish that were true. Today, science is more about politics and research funding than the scientific method. The man made Global Warming issue is a case in point. Anyone who speaks out against the political consensus is shunned as if an article of faith had been blasphemed. It is more religious in it's zeal than most religions.

Not really. I think that some people mistake peer-review for "ostracism." Science is critical of EVERYTHING, including the model for man-made climate change.

Also, the opposition to Global warming has only been based on the negation of the Theory of Man-made Climate Change and has not proposed alternative Climate Prediction models based on our pollution of the atmosphere. When they propose credible predictive theories that stand up to scrutiny, then they will successfully refute the consensus theory.

[hillplus]

According to most of the Scientific community, there is an extremely high probability that life exists on other planets throughout the universe--somewhere between 98 to 100%. My Minister friend is completely convinced that this is impossible because the Bible says that God created man and man alone in his own image.

Who's right and who's wrong?

I am a Christian and I also am convinced with the same percentage as the scientific community (actually at the 100% range) that the universe is teeming with life. Life not unlike our own.

[Mikko]

The question - "Why are so many Christians vehemently opposed to Science?" The reason this Christian is opposed to Science is simple, it is a Lie.

We are told we have evolved from monkeys. I ask those who believe this "lie" one question. If we evolved from monkeys, WHY are there still monkeys?

:rolleyes: You're giving mounatin folk a bad name.:)

[Mikko]

You're not serious, are you? Please tell me that you're not that ignorant of even the most basic ideas of the theory of evolution.
The view he expresses is, unfortunately, widely held in American society. It's no wonder we lag behind much of the rest of the world in science education.:)

[Lie Sniper]

You're not serious, are you? Snip.........

:))

[Lie Sniper]

You say that in the past tense, as if the process was complete. It only takes a short trip out in public to realize that is not the case.

:))

[Lie Sniper]

The question - "Why are so many Christians vehemently opposed to Science?" The reason this Christian is opposed to Science is simple, it is a Lie.

We are told we have evolved from monkeys. I ask those who believe this "lie" one question. If we evolved from monkeys, WHY are there still monkeys?

:)):))

[Koushi Shinigami]

:))

You're too kind.

[Lie Sniper]

You're too kind.

What can I say?

I'm vehemently opposed to Christians who are vehemently opposed to Science.:whistle:

[Koushi Shinigami]

"We don't take too kindly to people who don't take kindly 'rount here."

[captusa]

Why are so many Christians vehemently opposed to Science?

When excesses done in the name of Christ like the Crusades, the Inquisition, murder of Protestants by Catholics, murder of Catholics by Protestants.....are brought up
the oft given answer is the perpetrators were not "real" Christians.


The answer to, "Why are so many Christians vehemently opposed to Science?"

They are not the intelligent or well-educated Christians.

[Jacob_Rising]

I live in Alabama and I noticed that I'm able to talk about almost every major school subject with complete ease and comfort. History, English, Math--no problem whatsoever. But when I start to touch the surface of Science, people look at me as if something's wrong with me.

When I talk about dinosaurs, they want to end the conversation.

When I talk about anything outside of the solar system, they start to deny basic information that is taught in 6th grade.

When I talk about what telescopes have been able to glimpse in the last 60 years, they completely deny the authenticity of those photographs.

When I tell them I watch the Science channel sometimes, they almost laugh to my face.

Everything else is perfectly okay to talk about but when I talk about anything scientific, it's just too much for them. Why? What is the big deal?

I realize there are theories they disagree with but why close their minds to common sense? There is mounting evidence that proves Metaphysics to be a valid branch of Science, there are dinosaur bones buried all of the world, scientists have been able to use the information they gathered to predict the movements of stars and planets with near-perfect precision, and some of the world's best inventions were created as a result of scientific research. We are adults, right? Why persist in showing disdain for these things?I'm 48 and I believed the Earth was 6000 years old all my life until a few years ago.

I was watching a program yesterday and they were talking about the dinos dying about 70 million years ago and my mother was just laghing in the background as if they were liars.

It's very irritating when people wont admit obvious truth.

I explained to my mother that the nearest star was 5 million light years away and we can see it's light.

I explained as a matter of fact that the light of that star started coming at the Earth 5 million years ago because we know exactly how fast light travels.

The bible does not contradict science in this way but it's hard to convince people who have closed minds and wont accept obvious truth.

When people started claiming the Earth was round, I'm sure they ran into the same problem, stubborn people who wont admit truth.

[dittoheadAZ]

I live in Alabama and I noticed that I'm able to talk about almost every major school subject with complete ease and comfort. History, English, Math--no problem whatsoever. But when I start to touch the surface of Science, people look at me as if something's wrong with me.

When I talk about dinosaurs, they want to end the conversation.

When I talk about anything outside of the solar system, they start to deny basic information that is taught in 6th grade.

When I talk about what telescopes have been able to glimpse in the last 60 years, they completely deny the authenticity of those photographs.

When I tell them I watch the Science channel sometimes, they almost laugh to my face.

Everything else is perfectly okay to talk about but when I talk about anything scientific, it's just too much for them. Why? What is the big deal?

I realize there are theories they disagree with but why close their minds to common sense? There is mounting evidence that proves Metaphysics to be a valid branch of Science, there are dinosaur bones buried all of the world, scientists have been able to use the information they gathered to predict the movements of stars and planets with near-perfect precision, and some of the world's best inventions were created as a result of scientific research. We are adults, right? Why persist in showing disdain for these things?

You're hanging around too many "Young-Earth" Creationists (the ones who arrogantly consider themselves to be the only "True" Creationists).

I actually had one of them tell me that the dinosaurs were Satanic. Funny - I NEVER saw any evidence that they worshipped Satan! :)

The "Old-Earth" Creationists are quite fine with science, math, etc.; I highly recommend Hugh Ross's books "The Creator And The Cosmos" (get the most recent edition; it has additional new scientific findings) and "Creation And Time".

My own addition to his arguments (regarding the YEC "appearance of age", especially when dealing with light from nearby galaxies) is that if light was formed "in transit", with the scattering effects showing as if it had actually travelled all that distance, then what need for the galaxies themselves? In fact, since light could not have made it from any of the galaxies in the alleged 6000-year existence of the Universe, then there is no proof that they even exist, since the light would NOT be evidence. Furthermore, it was the concentration of supernova explosions in the Andromeda Galaxy that indicated that it WAS a long distance away, and the Universe WAS much older than 6000 years. If this too is a hoax, then we are seeing explosions of stars that never existed to indicate to us that galaxies that never existed were formed back in time that never occurred. The whole concept would completely undermine the possibility of a benevolent, honest Creator that the concept of a 6000-year age of the Universe should be completely and immediately dismissed from consideration.

But if you try to mention that to the YECs, you either get laughed at (as you noted), or they try to say you're not a "True Christian". (A typical response when there is no possible refutation is to deny the credibility of the opponent rather than try to refute the points anyway.)

[dittoheadAZ]

[SIZE="4"][COLOR="SandyBrown"]When excesses done in the name of Christ like the Crusades, the Inquisition, murder of Protestants by Catholics, murder of Catholics by Protestants.....are brought up
the oft given answer is the perpetrators were not "real" Christians.


The Crusades were justified, as the Crusaders were the defenders, not the aggressors.

The rest were, and are, not.

[dittoheadAZ]

I'm 48 and I believed the Earth was 6000 years old all my life until a few years ago.

I was watching a program yesterday and they were talking about the dinos dying about 70 million years ago and my mother was just laghing in the background as if they were liars.

It's very irritating when people wont admit obvious truth.

I explained to my mother that the nearest star was 5 million light years away and we can see it's light.

I explained as a matter of fact that the light of that star started coming at the Earth 5 million years ago because we know exactly how fast light travels.

The bible does not contradict science in this way but it's hard to convince people who have closed minds and wont accept obvious truth.

When people started claiming the Earth was round, I'm sure they ran into the same problem, stubborn people who wont admit truth.

Actually, the nearest star is about 4 light-years away. But we can (given dark skies) easily see light from two MILLION light-years away, and MUCH further with the use of appropriate optical aids, so the basic premise of your argument is still valid.

The problem is that many folks think that the Bible is supposed to be a science book. It's not; it's a reference for things that are much more important. In fact, the Bible even "claims" that the Earth is flat (a compass draws a circle; you are all free to look up either term in your favourite Bible program or online site). And for the frame of reference in which it applies, it may as well be, because the flatness or oblate-spheriodness or hyperbolic-paraboloidness or whatever-it-would-happen-to-be-ness is not at all relevant for the true points being made.

If nuclear reactions in the interiors of stars and the construction of the Internet were necessary for Salvation, they would be mentioned in the Bible. They're not, so they weren't. Just because they weren't mentioned doesn't mean they don't exist, or aren't important. But not for the purpose intended.

[captusa]

The Crusades were justified, as the Crusaders were the defenders, not the aggressors.

The rest were, and are, not.

You should learn a little about the Crusades and the massacre of the inhabatants of Jerusaleum.

[Fig Tree]

You will not convince me of your belief and your faith, and I am not equiped otherwise than plead with you to consider your choice. If the bible is wrong...then we who believe in it loose nothing...we decay into the ground and become nothing. However, the consequences of holding your faith and belief in things other than God are much more severe, there are no Atheist in Heaven. God will not excuse you for unbelief. Unbelief is blasphemy against God, the punishment is eternity in hell. You will end up there regardless of whether you believe in it or not. I encourage you to ask for forgiveness aof all your sins, ask Jesus into your heart and to be Lord of your life, and seek God with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul, and all your strength.

[Mikko]

The Crusades were justified, as the Crusaders were the defenders, not the aggressors.
You're kidding, right?The rest were, and are, not.No proof of that.:)

[captusa]

You will not convince me of your belief and your faith, and I am not equiped otherwise than plead with you to consider your choice. If the bible is wrong...then we who believe in it loose nothing...we decay into the ground and become nothing. However, the consequences of holding your faith and belief in things other than God are much more severe, there are no Atheist in Heaven. God will not excuse you for unbelief. Unbelief is blasphemy against God, the punishment is eternity in hell. You will end up there regardless of whether you believe in it or not. I encourage you to ask for forgiveness aof all your sins, ask Jesus into your heart and to be Lord of your life, and seek God with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul, and all your strength.

Pascal's wager has been discussed often.
and its corallary:
If you are worshipping the wrong God you will be in more trouble than those of us that worship no Gods.

Even you allege that your alleged Deity orders you not to have other Gods before HIM.
If there was really a different Deity HE also might be more offended by people like you who have another God before Him than those that have no God.
Now that you are aware of your risk you might rethink your religious point of view.

[captusa]

Sigh... Pascal again. Who wants to explain?

The corollary is more enlightening.

[Mikko]

You will not convince me of your belief and your faith, and I am not equiped otherwise than plead with you to consider your choice.
I think he considers all his choices.:)
If the bible is wrong...then we who believe in it loose nothing...we decay into the ground and become nothing.
The same is true of the believers of all religions.
However, the consequences of holding your faith and belief in things other than God are much more severe, there are no Atheist in Heaven.
No proof of that.
God will not excuse you for unbelief. Unbelief is blasphemy against God, the punishment is eternity in hell.
Opinion only.:)
You will end up there regardless of whether you believe in it or not.
No proof of that.
I encourage you to ask for forgiveness aof all your sins, ask Jesus into your heart and to be Lord of your life, and seek God with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul, and all your strength.
Did somebody.....ah say, did somebody say "proselytize?":)

[Tim]

The corollary is more enlightening.

True... I'm always a bit puzzled by folks that invoke Pascal. That they would think their God could be fooled by "belief" based on fear of possible consequences of unbelief is beyond me. Do they think that little of their God? :wall:

[PercyVere]

I do not think it is that we oppose science, on the contrary, most of the leaders of the scientific fields were devote Christians. The issue is imposing evolution as scientific law. There is no proof, otherwise it would be a law by now, don't you think?Evolution is a theory. A rock solid theory. A thoroughly tested theory that has withstood a century and a half of determined attempts to discredit it. It is a theory that has done more to explain our own existence than any other theory in history.

In science it doesn't get much better than that. It will never be a law, nor should it. It is, however, what a layman would call 'a fact', like it or not, deny it or not.

[Mikko]

Evolution is a theory. A rock solid theory. A thoroughly tested theory that has withstood a century and a half of determined attempts to discredit it. It is a theory that has done more to explain our own existence than any other theory in history.

In science it doesn't get much better than that. It will never be a law, nor should it. It is, however, what a layman would call 'a fact', like it or not, deny it or not.
Please stick around here.:)

[PercyVere]

I'm pretty sure I heard that the north pole's ice cap was going to be gone this year, that's not true.It's still only February.

Scientific opinion would be easier to take seriously if they'd use the phrase, "we think" rather than "we know". When science proves what it's saying, I have no problem believing them.Scientific theories remain as theories no matter how good. However when a theory is rock solid, as in evolution, terms like 'we know' are perfectly sensible, given that evolution is 'a fact'. We know evolution happens for a fact, there is no doubt whatsoever about that. All doubt that evolution occurs requires an entirely unreasonable rejection of mountains of evidence.

[PercyVere]

You speaking of traits of animals...that is not natural selection...that is adaptation. Where is the proof that an entire species has changed into another species under scientific observation?What are species but entirely man-made classifications for living things. There is no such thing really. Nevertheless 'speciation' has been observed in the lab. Look it up.

How did flowering plants evolve, and from what? If we are evolving into more complex organism...why do we have 48 chromosomes and a fern have 480? Maybe we evolved from the lesser triplets of 22 chromosomes (the possum, redrood tree, or kidney bean).You seem to be suggesting that evolution has a plan, aiming for ever increasing complexity. It does not.

[PercyVere]

Please stick around here.:):-) Can you believe we have sit here and defend the ability of science to explain natural phenomena. It's quite sad, to be honest.

[Spin Master]

If I am not mistaken in order to achieve the speed of light you would need to archive infinite mass, got a link?

Fig Tree is intentionally making things up as he goes along. 300 times the speed of light? What's the point of even saying something like that?

It's better to just ignore him then to get caught up in his manipulative games.

[Mikko]

:-) Can you believe we have sit here and defend the ability of science to explain natural phenomena. It's quite sad, to be honest.
It's not only sad; it's frightening in its indictment of the state of science education in the U.S. It's also proof that many people mold their logic around their pre-selected beliefs.:)

[captusa]

True... I'm always a bit puzzled by folks that invoke Pascal. That they would think their God could be fooled by "belief" based on fear of possible consequences of unbelief is beyond me. Do they think that little of their God? :wall:

They also think Pascal was serious.

[dittoheadAZ]

You should learn a little about the Crusades and the massacre of the inhabatants of Jerusaleum.

You mean from the incoming Muslims who preceded the Crusades?

[Mikko]

Fig Tree is intentionally making things up as he goes along. 300 times the speed of light? What's the point of even saying something like that?

It's better to just ignore him then to get caught up in his manipulative games.
I'm not sure it's intentional.:)

[Voxpopuli]

When excesses done in the name of Christ like the Crusades, the Inquisition, murder of Protestants by Catholics, murder of Catholics by Protestants.....are brought up
the oft given answer is the perpetrators were not "real" Christians.


This has more to do with the state incorporating an ideology, any ideology in order to achieve its goals. Historically the biggest killer has always been the state. The state will use whatever ideology is held by the people (Christianity, Islam, Materialism, Zionism, etc...) to justify aggressive behaviors against political rivals. Would removing religion from society prevent these type of things from happening? No, of course not.

[Spin Master]

I'm not sure it's intentional.:)

Well it's still irresponsible to say outrageous statements like that without first considering their validity. Judging from the way his mind works, he probably does that a lot. I feel sorry for the people in his life who have to put up with his arrogant BS.

[Fig Tree]

Science does not require faith, the experiments and results are TANGIBLE. Also stop worrying so much about this God character and start thinking about Allah! I hear that guy doesn't mess around!!! Ohhh also if you are a Christian then Ba'al isn't going to be too thrilled to see you after you go. All that mean stuff about him in the bible, I don't see him having mercy on you for that!!!

Those statements are silly to you because you know that Allah and Ba'al are just man-made religions. What you fail to see is that both of those, and every other religion EVER have the exact same amount of physical evidence proving their divinity.

Pride is also an issue that we must deal with in addition to blasphemy. The path of the proud is destruction. I once again urge you to be humble in your thoughts and your words. I speak to you as someone I would stop from walking off a cliff. We are not perfect and never will be. Attacking religion will not bring you happiness. There is only one true way to find happiness and that it through the saving grace that God gave us through Christ. You can deny his gift and continue to attack his people, yet you will not find true joy until you turn to him and not away from him. There are things that we can't explain in this world and there are things we can. Christian scientist have played an integral part in discoveries throughout history. You can continue to the path to try to prove he does not exist or try to understand his creation and our place in it. Trying to understand his creation has brought forth the most scientific advancements in history.

[philc398]

I live in Alabama and I noticed that I'm able to talk about almost every major school subject with complete ease and comfort. History, English, Math--no problem whatsoever. But when I start to touch the surface of Science, people look at me as if something's wrong with me.

When I talk about dinosaurs, they want to end the conversation.

When I talk about anything outside of the solar system, they start to deny basic information that is taught in 6th grade.

When I talk about what telescopes have been able to glimpse in the last 60 years, they completely deny the authenticity of those photographs.

When I tell them I watch the Science channel sometimes, they almost laugh to my face.

Everything else is perfectly okay to talk about but when I talk about anything scientific, it's just too much for them. Why? What is the big deal?

I realize there are theories they disagree with but why close their minds to common sense? There is mounting evidence that proves Metaphysics to be a valid branch of Science, there are dinosaur bones buried all of the world, scientists have been able to use the information they gathered to predict the movements of stars and planets with near-perfect precision, and some of the world's best inventions were created as a result of scientific research. We are adults, right? Why persist in showing disdain for these things?


:eh: I live in Alabama too, whats your point on isolating my State in your discussion? I do not find this to be a problem and you bring anecdotal occurrences to a debate about science in this religious sub-forum... :snooty:

[Mikko]

Pride is also an issue that we must deal with in addition to blasphemy. The path of the proud is destruction. I once again urge you to be humble in your thoughts and your words. I speak to you as someone I would stop from walking off a cliff. We are not perfect and never will be. Attacking religion will not bring you happiness. There is only one true way to find happiness and that it through the saving grace that God gave us through Christ. You can deny his gift and continue to attack his people, yet you will not find true joy until you turn to him and not away from him. There are things that we can't explain in this world and there are things we can. Christian scientist have played an integral part in discoveries throughout history. You can continue to the path to try to prove he does not exist or try to understand his creation and our place in it. Trying to understand his creation has brought forth the most scientific advancements in history.
I personally don't have a problem with God; I believe in Him/Her/It. It's the personification of God you seem to be presenting I don't accept.:)

[Voxpopuli]

Do you mind if I quote you in an upcoming paper I am doing called "Christianity: The Ultimate Rationalization" for an english lit class?

You are in college?

[Mikko]

Do you mind if I quote you in an upcoming paper I am doing called "Christianity: The Ultimate Rationalization" for an english lit class?
Be careful about how you characterize people's religious beliefs here. It is a fine line you must walk. Calling someone's faith a "rationalization" could earn you a trip to the Mod forum. That's not fun, believe me.:)

[megs280]

That is more of a "god of the gaps" outlook. When someone asks me a science question like "what happened 1000 years before the big bang" I say "well, we just don't know" and you say "god".

ID generally is reserved for those who don't accept evolution.

Many think that time also began with the Big Bang so there was no time before the Big Bang. I guess I look at it as more of 'what caused the Big Bang'? Some argue that there doesn't have to be a cause for the universe and that is fine but if a cause exists it defies and is apart from the laws of the universe.

I personally don't like the phrase "God of the gaps". People often use it in a condescending way. Believers think that God created the universe. Evolution would therefore have to be the mechanism of creating all the organisms and various forms of life under the assumption of theistic evolution. Its not a scientific theory and I don't think it was meant to be. Theistic evolution or ID is worthy of exploring but not in the science classroom as it by definition invokes theology. We are asking questions that science may not be able to answer and almost certainly won't be able to during our life time. Some gaps are always going to be there and subjective philosophy fills them in. It may be easy to label all thoughts regarding God’s role in the natural world as believing in “God of the gaps” but many theists believe in a “God of the universe”…behind everything science has discovered already about the natural world and of the gaps still remaining.

[PercyVere]

Many think that time also began with the Big Bang so there was no time before the Big Bang.Doesn't everyone think that?

[RayMan]

Be careful about how you characterize people's religious beliefs here. It is a fine line you must walk. Calling someone's faith a "rationalization" could earn you a trip to the Mod forum. That's not fun, believe me.:)


Listen to Mikko.


Mikko knows!

[RayMan]

Doesn't everyone think that?

You're kidding, right?

[Jacob_Rising]

Actually, the nearest star is about 4 light-years away. But we can (given dark skies) easily see light from two MILLION light-years away, and MUCH further with the use of appropriate optical aids, so the basic premise of your argument is still valid.

The problem is that many folks think that the Bible is supposed to be a science book. It's not; it's a reference for things that are much more important. In fact, the Bible even "claims" that the Earth is flat (a compass draws a circle; you are all free to look up either term in your favourite Bible program or online site). And for the frame of reference in which it applies, it may as well be, because the flatness or oblate-spheriodness or hyperbolic-paraboloidness or whatever-it-would-happen-to-be-ness is not at all relevant for the true points being made.

If nuclear reactions in the interiors of stars and the construction of the Internet were necessary for Salvation, they would be mentioned in the Bible. They're not, so they weren't. Just because they weren't mentioned doesn't mean they don't exist, or aren't important. But not for the purpose intended.I was going by the History channel,'' Universe'' comercials which claim that the nearest start is 5 million light years.

I forget what scripture it is, but the bible says the world is round.

I'll have to find it.

[smyrna]

I live in Alabama and I noticed that I'm able to talk about almost every major school subject with complete ease and comfort. History, English, Math--no problem whatsoever. But when I start to touch the surface of Science, people look at me as if something's wrong with me.

When I talk about dinosaurs, they want to end the conversation.

When I talk about anything outside of the solar system, they start to deny basic information that is taught in 6th grade.

When I talk about what telescopes have been able to glimpse in the last 60 years, they completely deny the authenticity of those photographs.

When I tell them I watch the Science channel sometimes, they almost laugh to my face.

Everything else is perfectly okay to talk about but when I talk about anything scientific, it's just too much for them. Why? What is the big deal?

I realize there are theories they disagree with but why close their minds to common sense? There is mounting evidence that proves Metaphysics to be a valid branch of Science, there are dinosaur bones buried all of the world, scientists have been able to use the information they gathered to predict the movements of stars and planets with near-perfect precision, and some of the world's best inventions were created as a result of scientific research. We are adults, right? Why persist in showing disdain for these things?

Personally, I am not opposed to science. Look at the cures that are being developed and the advances being made. We are able to communicate with each other through the invention of the internet. It is fantastic. What I object to is theory being stated as fact. The theory that man evolved from apes is not a fact and should be stated as such. I find more criticism from individuals who are not Christian. If Christians are correct in their beliefs, then everyone else has something to seriously worry about and this generates disdain. Just read the two threads that are discussing this right now and look at where the harsh words are coming from. It isn't the Christians.

[Mikko]

Listen to Mikko.


Mikko knows!
Alas, in this particular matter, Mikko knows all too well.:)

[Mikko]

I was going by the History channel,'' Universe'' comercials which claim that the nearest start is 5 million light years.

I forget what scripture it is, but the bible says the world is round.

I'll have to find it.
Scripture says the world is a circle.:)

[RayMan]

I was going by the History channel,'' Universe'' comercials which claim that the nearest start is 5 million light years.

I forget what scripture it is, but the bible says the world is round.

I'll have to find it.

Isaiah 40 Jacob. But never mind. I brought it up a couple of days ago and was told it doesn't mean what it says.

[Jacob_Rising]

:eh: I live in Alabama too, whats your point on isolating my State in your discussion? I do not find this to be a problem and you bring anecdotal occurrences to a debate about science in this religious sub-forum... :snooty:I think he meant that it was in the South so it would be obvious that people should know more about everything.

I think there are more religous people in the South and I'm sure everyone is aware that the smartest people are from the South, that's why we keep electing Presidents from the South.

He was just surprized that he found some people in the South that didn't allready know what he was talking about.

[Mikko]

Doesn't everyone think that?
Not everyone, but technically, there was no time before the big bang.

[Mikko]

Isaiah 40 Jacob. But never mind. I brought it up a couple of days ago and was told it doesn't mean what it says.
It means exactly what it says. Circle. A circle is not a shpere. It doesn't say "sphere" of the earth; it says "circle"of the earth, as in a flat circle under a domed sky, said dome being called the "firmament.":)

[megs280]

Doesn't everyone think that?

I thought so..but I have come across some theories suggesting time loops, reverse time, and some other interesting phenomena. I am not knowledgable enough about physics to really understand them though.

[Jacob_Rising]

Isaiah 40 Jacob. But never mind. I brought it up a couple of days ago and was told it doesn't mean what it says.Well, It doesn't make sense to try and claim that people didn't know the Earth was round, They did know the Earth was round and the educated people who wrote the bible must have known it was round, It had to be common knowledge from what was built in ancient days.

Not only did they know the Earth was round but they also knew how far the Sun was from the Earth, They knew the circumference of the Earth and they knew all the cycles of the planets, They knew Venus had an eight year cycle.

I think they knew more about space and how things work better than we do now.

[Mikko]

I thought so..but I have come across some theories suggesting time loops, reverse time, and some other interesting phenomenon. I am not knowledgable enough about physics to really understand them though.
It never ends.:)

[RayMan]

Well, It doesn't make sense to try and claim that people didn't know the Earth was round, They did know the Earth was round and the educated people who wrote the bible must have known it was round, It had to be common knowledge from what was built in ancient days.

Not only did they know the Earth was round but they also knew how far the Sun was from the Earth, They knew the circumference of the Earth and they knew all the cycles of the planets, They knew Venus had an eight year cycle.

I think they knew more about space and how things work better than we do now.

You hear me arguin' hermano?

[Stars&Stripes]

I live in Alabama and I noticed that I'm able to talk about almost every major school subject with complete ease and comfort. History, English, Math--no problem whatsoever. But when I start to touch the surface of Science, people look at me as if something's wrong with me.

When I talk about dinosaurs, they want to end the conversation.

When I talk about anything outside of the solar system, they start to deny basic information that is taught in 6th grade.

When I talk about what telescopes have been able to glimpse in the last 60 years, they completely deny the authenticity of those photographs.

When I tell them I watch the Science channel sometimes, they almost laugh to my face.

Everything else is perfectly okay to talk about but when I talk about anything scientific, it's just too much for them. Why? What is the big deal?

I realize there are theories they disagree with but why close their minds to common sense? There is mounting evidence that proves Metaphysics to be a valid branch of Science, there are dinosaur bones buried all of the world, scientists have been able to use the information they gathered to predict the movements of stars and planets with near-perfect precision, and some of the world's best inventions were created as a result of scientific research. We are adults, right? Why persist in showing disdain for these things?

Concerning your title:

"Why are so many Christians vehemently opposed to science."

Why did you use a straw man and a sweeping generalization in your title?

[megs280]

It never ends.:)

:) that's for sure.

[Jacob_Rising]

You hear me arguin' hermano?My new form of debate is always to addess you Cunyow..

[RayMan]

My new form of debate is always to addess you Cunyow..

How apropos for a guy who loves the Law.

[Mikko]

Concerning your title:

"Why are so many Christians vehemently opposed to science."

Why did you use a straw man and a sweeping generalization in your title?
It's neither a sweeping generalization nor a strawman in this forum:)

[Jacob_Rising]

How apropos for a guy who loves the Law.Wow, I can't believe you put that together.

That's what I meant.

I'm sure it's spelled wrong though, heck, I can't spell in English much less in EspenYa'll.

[RayMan]

It means exactly what it says. Circle. A circle is not a shpere. It doesn't say "sphere" of the earth; it says "circle"of the earth, as in a flat circle under a domed sky, said dome being called the "firmament.":)

Says you Mikko. Mimiheart - a B'nai Noach and Hebrew School teacher chimed in the other day to say that to a Hebrew speaker sphere is a legitimate translation for the Hebrew word. :drool:

[Jacob_Rising]

Says you Mikko. Mimiheart - a B'nai Noach and Hebrew School teacher chimed in the other day to say that to a Hebrew speaker sphere is a legitimate translation for the Hebrew word. :drool:
Abe would be the man to ask because he would be unbiased and he knows the Jewish language better than anyone I've ever met. Who speaks fluent Jewish or Aramaic, Or Swahili?

I'll ask him a question and he will get on the phone and talk to somebody in Jewish and then talk to somebody in another language and give me the answer.

If they ever have a reality show about Religion, this guy should be involved, he has experts in his pockets from all kinds of backgrounds.

But he would be unbiased on this question and if he doesn't know the perfect answer, he only needs to make a couple calls.

[RayMan]

Abe would be the man to ask because he would be unbiased and he knows the Jewish language better than anyone I've ever met. Who speaks fluent Jewish or Aramaic, Or Swahili?

I'll ask him a question and he will get on the phone and talk to somebody in Jewish and then talk to somebody in another language and give me the answer.

If they ever have a reality show about Religion, this guy should be involved, he has experts in his pockets from all kinds of backgrounds.

But he would be unbiased on this question and if he doesn't know the perfect answer, he only needs to make a couple calls.

I have asked Abe's opinion on such things numerous times. Mimi just happened to chime in after someone had explained how wrong I was.

[Jacob_Rising]

Says you Mikko. Mimiheart - a B'nai Noach and Hebrew School teacher chimed in the other day to say that to a Hebrew speaker sphere is a legitimate translation for the Hebrew word. :drool:Yeah Mimi would know too, But I bet Mikko would trust what Abe said because they are the same religion as far as I know.

If you don't mind relaying that to Mikko for me, See you guys later, Please feel free to talk amongst yourselves.

[Stars&Stripes]

It's neither a sweeping generalization nor a strawman in this forum:)

You did not back up your mere opinion. You MUST do this at all times.

"Why are so many..." Setting up the straw man that sooooo many Christians are somehow opposed to science, expecting others to accept the template and try to knock it down. Puhleeze. And the OP uses anecdotal evidence to back this up. Anecdotal evidence is useless.

And the OP was sweeping in its conclusions: What proof is there in the OP that there are "so many," versus just many (minus the so) or even some?

[Semi-Sweet]

Isaiah 40 Jacob. But never mind. I brought it up a couple of days ago and was told it doesn't mean what it says.

I found this RayMan. Noun 3 is interesting.

circle
noun 1. ring, round, band, disc, loop, hoop, cordon, perimeter, halo
noun 2. group, company, set, school, club, order, class, society, crowd, assembly, fellowship, fraternity, clique, coterie
noun 3. sphere, world, area, range, field, scene, orbit, realm, milieu
verb 4. go round, ring, surround, belt, curve, enclose, encompass, compass, envelop, encircle, circumscribe, hem in, gird, circumnavigate, enwreath
verb 5. wheel, spiral, revolve, rotate, whirl, pivot

Collins Essential Thesaurus 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2005, 2006

[RayMan]

I found this RayMan. Noun 3 is interesting.

circle
noun 1. ring, round, band, disc, loop, hoop, cordon, perimeter, halo
noun 2. group, company, set, school, club, order, class, society, crowd, assembly, fellowship, fraternity, clique, coterie
noun 3. sphere, world, area, range, field, scene, orbit, realm, milieu
verb 4. go round, ring, surround, belt, curve, enclose, encompass, compass, envelop, encircle, circumscribe, hem in, gird, circumnavigate, enwreath
verb 5. wheel, spiral, revolve, rotate, whirl, pivot

Collins Essential Thesaurus 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2005, 2006


My, my, my.

[biggles53]

I found this RayMan. Noun 3 is interesting.

circle
noun 1. ring, round, band, disc, loop, hoop, cordon, perimeter, halo
noun 2. group, company, set, school, club, order, class, society, crowd, assembly, fellowship, fraternity, clique, coterie
noun 3. sphere, world, area, range, field, scene, orbit, realm, milieu
verb 4. go round, ring, surround, belt, curve, enclose, encompass, compass, envelop, encircle, circumscribe, hem in, gird, circumnavigate, enwreath
verb 5. wheel, spiral, revolve, rotate, whirl, pivot

Collins Essential Thesaurus 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2005, 2006


Oh boy.....

The use of the word "circle" in 3 is to use it as in "a circle of friends", or a "sphere of influence". Are you tring to argue that this is what the intention was when "circle of the earth" is used in the Bible...??

[Jacob_Rising]

My, my, my.
We got us a Neil Young running around.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I need to go play basketcircle.

[free2B]

I live in Alabama and I noticed that I'm able to talk about almost every major school subject with complete ease and comfort. History, English, Math--no problem whatsoever. But when I start to touch the surface of Science, people look at me as if something's wrong with me.

When I talk about dinosaurs, they want to end the conversation.

When I talk about anything outside of the solar system, they start to deny basic information that is taught in 6th grade.

When I talk about what telescopes have been able to glimpse in the last 60 years, they completely deny the authenticity of those photographs.

When I tell them I watch the Science channel sometimes, they almost laugh to my face.

Everything else is perfectly okay to talk about but when I talk about anything scientific, it's just too much for them. Why? What is the big deal?

I realize there are theories they disagree with but why close their minds to common sense? There is mounting evidence that proves Metaphysics to be a valid branch of Science, there are dinosaur bones buried all of the world, scientists have been able to use the information they gathered to predict the movements of stars and planets with near-perfect precision, and some of the world's best inventions were created as a result of scientific research. We are adults, right? Why persist in showing disdain for these things?

may I suggest spinmaster that you have your scientific discussions with adults, if you are haveing a problem discussing science with contemporaries, perhaps you should first aquaint them with at least an education up to and includeing the 8th grade, HS science curriculum may also be of assistance

[captusa]

You did not back up your mere opinion. You MUST do this at all times.

"Why are so many..." Setting up the straw man that sooooo many Christians are somehow opposed to science, expecting others to accept the template and try to knock it down. Puhleeze. And the OP uses anecdotal evidence to back this up. Anecdotal evidence is useless.

And the OP was sweeping in its conclusions: What proof is there in the OP that there are "so many," versus just many (minus the so) or even some?

One intelligent Christian vehemently opposed to science would be too many.
"So many" might be a relatively small number.

[captusa]

..... There is mounting evidence that proves Metaphysics to be a valid branch of Science,.....


This sentence is self-contradictory!

[meggers49]

Any scientist will admit he's wrong IF you have credible evidence proving that he may be wrong.

that makes no sense. did the scientists from the ancient times or the medieval times or the later centuries admit they were wrong? why? because it was a long time before they were proven wrong. that doesn't mean that what our scientists believe now won't be proven wrong centuries from now, and to say that something is KNOWN when in fact, something is SUPPOSED, although with good reason, is arrogant at best and dangerous at worst.

Let's face it..every day 'science' says 'this is what we know' and in a couple weeks or months or years they say, 'well, we USED to think _____'.

Look at Lister and Semmelweis, they were roundly scorned for their thoughts, and yet they were proven correct. They bucked the popular sciences of the day. Who is to say that right now, these are the same scientists who thought Lister and Semmelweis were loons, just in modern garb?

[meggers49]

(so tempted to respond to the anti-evolution posts to clear up the misconceptions!! But I won't :D. This is a running offer: If you'd like to talk to a Geneticist about the Theory of Evolution, please set up a thread in the General Interest forum or send me a PM. I'd be happy to show you all of the molecular biology about the Theory and how far it has progressed since Darwin's Origin of Species.)

To the OP:

I don't believe that many Christians are vehemently opposed to science; they just do not understand it, yet believe that they do. Keep in mind, as well, that there are many Christians who DO have an excellent knowledge of scientific material and maintain a spiritual belief system; I am not talking about them in this post, and I admire their existential philosophy in this regard.



I have met many many intelligent, successful, and worldly Christians in my life. I understand that they have a SPIRITUAL side and a RATIONAL side.


Let me explain further. They believe in concepts that they will NEVER tangibly experience, yet at the same time, they focus FAR MORE on the physical material present in their immediate lives. Their justification for this seeming contradiction in logic is summed up in the word, "FAITH." Faith - to them - is the ultimate glue by which all things can be rationalized. Bad things happen to you while you were doing good for the less fortunate? Have faith that God will make it all up to you later. Scared about the unknown experience of death? Have faith that God will be there later.

Faith is the panacea by which some people conquer their fears, apprehensions and questions about the world. Faith also - as a side-effect - provides PURPOSE to existence.


Science will never answer philosophical questions that many people of faith seek answers to. WHY are we here? Certain Christian sects provide a DEFINITE answer: "we are God's toys, created to keep him amused. If we die and we are favored by God, we will be rewarded by him." Scientific theories, BY DEFINITION, can only speak in terms of statistical likelihood: "it is likely that organic molecules were created in the Earth's early atmosphere that could self-assemble without direction. Given the modular nature of the process, and the ability for successful combinations to be reproduced without intelligent direction, it is likely that a nucleic acid molecule was encapsulated into a lipid micelle and became the first proto-lifeform (Theory of Abiogenesis)."

If you didn't study college level Biology and Chemistry, which would you choose? The seemingly definite answer? Or the answer that seems "shifty," in order to cover all ends?

I am not understanding this post at all. You make it sound like those who believe in God can't possibly understand science and are lacking in their knowledge of the sciences. I'm sorry, but I am quite offended by that statement. I took college biology and chemistry. (personally, I loathe quantitative chemistry and prefer qualitative and organic...but that's just me). I work in a science field. I understand a lot of that nifty science stuff... It has its place. And I believe that God is the creator of all that nifty science stuff and while we understand some of it, our knowledge is so pathetic in relationship to the universe, I would be loathe to say "I KNOW", when in fact, we don't.

We have pretty good ideas about a lot of stuff, but to say that we KNOW...to dispel that concept, just take a look at a pharmacology pamphlet that comes with some medications. They have all the scientific writing for the chemicals, but they have no clue why or how some medications work. They just do. The educated guess is rampant in science, it's an extrapolation of evidence/data that has been collected. It doesn't make it right. Which is why in health care, they are finding that it is bad for women who are older to use HRT, the panacea of all womanly woes after menopause, and it's bad for men to have cholesterol levels less than 200 after the age of 65....lower is better!!! oh wait, no it's not, or why eggs are no longer the enemy.

Sweeping statements by scientists just cause credibility gaps.

I believe in science. But I believe in God more, because I think he's the one SHOWING the scientists his glory and they're just too arrogant to be grateful.

[PercyVere]

I forget what scripture it is, but the bible says the world is roundYep, round as in a circular disk, not round as in a sphere.

[PercyVere]

I think they knew more about space and how things work better than we do now.You're kidding, hopefully.

[PercyVere]

It means exactly what it says. Circle. A circle is not a shpere. It doesn't say "sphere" of the earth; it says "circle"of the earth, as in a flat circle under a domed sky, said dome being called the "firmament.":)Indeed ... and what sort of strange tent would you spread out over a sphere?
I'm sorry folks, but the boys that wrote Isaiah show no signs of knowledge of shape of our planet.

[PercyVere]

One intelligent Christian vehemently opposed to science would be too many.
"So many" might be a relatively small number.Ouch!

[Mobulis]

that makes no sense. did the scientists from the ancient times or the medieval times or the later centuries admit they were wrong? why? because it was a long time before they were proven wrong. that doesn't mean that what our scientists believe now won't be proven wrong centuries from now, and to say that something is KNOWN when in fact, something is SUPPOSED, although with good reason, is arrogant at best and dangerous at worst.

Let's face it..every day 'science' says 'this is what we know' and in a couple weeks or months or years they say, 'well, we USED to think _____'.

Look at Lister and Semmelweis, they were roundly scorned for their thoughts, and yet they were proven correct. They bucked the popular sciences of the day. Who is to say that right now, these are the same scientists who thought Lister and Semmelweis were loons, just in modern garb?

What about my statement makes no sense to you?

[Greyclouds]

I am not understanding this post at all. You make it sound like those who believe in God can't possibly understand science and are lacking in their knowledge of the sciences. I'm sorry, but I am quite offended by that statement. I took college biology and chemistry. (personally, I loathe quantitative chemistry and prefer qualitative and organic...but that's just me). I work in a science field. I understand a lot of that nifty science stuff... It has its place. And I believe that God is the creator of all that nifty science stuff and while we understand some of it, our knowledge is so pathetic in relationship to the universe, I would be loathe to say "I KNOW", when in fact, we don't.

I think you missed an important sentence that I inserted into my post to avoid making it a huge generalization:

Keep in mind, as well, that there are many Christians who DO have an excellent knowledge of scientific material and maintain a spiritual belief system; I am not talking about them in this post, and I admire their existential philosophy in this regard.

Also, if you studied Chemistry and Biology, you clearly apply to the last sentence in my post that you quoted.

I was not looking to offend you, and I hoped that would be clear; why do you feel offended by my post?


We have pretty good ideas about a lot of stuff, but to say that we KNOW...to dispel that concept, just take a look at a pharmacology pamphlet that comes with some medications. They have all the scientific writing for the chemicals, but they have no clue why or how some medications work. They just do. The educated guess is rampant in science, it's an extrapolation of evidence/data that has been collected. It doesn't make it right. Which is why in health care, they are finding that it is bad for women who are older to use HRT, the panacea of all womanly woes after menopause, and it's bad for men to have cholesterol levels less than 200 after the age of 65....lower is better!!! oh wait, no it's not, or why eggs are no longer the enemy.

See, I was attacking a concept used by many antagonists of Scientific Theories that use a Scientist's lack of 100% certainty (for nothing is ever 100% certain in science) to discredit selective theories.

I was talking about the cherry picking of the "theory of evolution," the "theory of abiogenesis" and the "theory of the big bang" as mere "speculation," whereas other theories (ie. atomic theory) are left unscathed.

From a rational point of view, why do pharmacists prescribe chemicals that work when they do not understand the pathways that they work on? As you stated above: because they know that they work, and they have evidence of them working.

Some anti-evolution advocates would argue that we should NOT study the theory of evolution because of the same reasons.


Sweeping statements by scientists just cause credibility gaps.

Which is why there is peer-review and the concept of a "theory." :D


I believe in science. But I believe in God more, because I think he's the one SHOWING the scientists his glory and they're just too arrogant to be grateful.

Is it arrogant to approach the study of physical phenomenon without first asking "what's God's impact in all of this?"

Must a scientist constantly account for God's actions in physical mechanisms to avoid being arrogant?

[Ming]

Why are so many "scientists" so vehemently opposed to religion?Because it's wrong and stupid?

[gpd®]

Because it's wrong and stupid?

Just like not reading the "Rules of Respect."

[Stardust]

I don't believe that "Christians are opposed to science".

Science is used for our health in the treatment of diseases. It is essential for our food, water, shelter.....in almost all aspects of our lives, and it is studied and used in all of these areas by Christians.

The fact that religion has a disagreement in one area does not suggest that "Christians oppose science". To make such a statement is false and ridiculous.

[PercyVere]

I don't believe that "Christians are opposed to science".

Science is used for our health in the treatment of diseases. It is essential for our food, water, shelter.....in almost all aspects of our lives, and it is studied and used in all of these areas by Christians.

The fact that religion has a disagreement in one area does not suggest that "Christians oppose science". To make such a statement is false and ridiculous.No not really. Firstly, that Christians ignore scientific principles in their arguments against evolution is bad enough. But Christians are at the forefront of science-denial in relation to Global Warming too.

[Stardust]

No not really. Firstly, that Christians ignore scientific principles in their arguments against evolution is bad enough. But Christians are at the forefront of science-denial in relation to Global Warming too.

You are just proving my point, you keep bringing up the "evolution" question. I just told you that science involves almost all aspects of our lives. The same science that Christians study and use on an everyday basis. Again, the fact that Christans have a disagreement with one aspect of science does not make them "hate science".

[Ming]

Just like not reading the "Rules of Respect."I apologize if my phrasing wasn't politically correct enough to spare your feelings. :(

[Thor]

What bothers me is when people (not just Christians) either ignore science when it conflicts with their beliefs or, even worse, twist science to make it support religious dogma. The answersingenesis website and "museum" are good examples of the latter.

[gpd®]

I apologize if my phrasing wasn't politically correct enough to spare your feelings. :(

Not my feelings, but the Rules of Respect posted on a sticky on top of this forum. I suggest you study them carefully please.

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=68516

[jade84116]

Why are so many scientists opposed to Christianity?:)

[PercyVere]

You are just proving my point, you keep bringing up the "evolution" question. I just told you that science involves almost all aspects of our lives. The same science that Christians study and use on an everyday basis. Again, the fact that Christans have a disagreement with one aspect of science does not make them "hate science".My point is that their rejection of evolution and, to a lesser degree, global warming, invovles the rejection of entire key principles of science. To reject evolution you must throw so many scientific concepts, methods and principles out the window.

To me, a rejection of evolution is proof that you just don't understand science as a whole.

[PercyVere]

Why are so many scientists opposed to Christianity?:)Christian extremism poses a very real threat to human scientific understanding.

[DRS]

Because it's wrong and stupid?


I know you are but what am I?:razz:

signed

Religion

[Victoryrider]

Fig Tree
We cannot accurately measure the distance from our planet beyond 100 of our term of measurement in light years. Trigonometry is used to measure the distance based on points of observation. This is basically trying to measure the distance of a straight line when we look at the stars.

Not quite true, parallax is trigonometry, but it is in no way like trying to measure a straight line. The Cepheid method is also used.

All of this is based on the presumption also that the speed of light is constant.

Rather good "assumption", read Einstein.

Light varies as it travels through various mediums such as a prism, the atmosphere, etc.

Also not quite true, the APPARENT speed is slower due to absorption and re-radiation.


Particle scientist in America have claimed they have broken the unbreakable barrier the speed of light by accelerating particles to 300 times the speed of light of 186,000 mps.


Interesting, I've never heard of this, do you have a citation?

[Koushi Shinigami]

Why are so many scientists opposed to Christianity?:)

My question is why are som many christians opposed to Christianity?

[gpd®]

My question is why are som many christians opposed to Christianity?

I wanna play.

Why are so many scientists opposed to science?

Oh this isn't the TP forum, shucks.:redface:

[Koushi Shinigami]

I wanna play.

Why are so many scientists opposed to science?

Oh this isn't the TP forum, shucks.:redface:

Things that make you say "HMmmmmmmm" :think:

[Victoryrider]

Conservitismfrst
Carbon dating is done assuming that Carbon has always broken down at the same pace as today.

Whats wrong with that "assumption?

With that in mind I'm not convinced that bones are millions of years old.

Carbon dating is not able to date anything more than a few thousand years old. Several different radiometric dating methods are used to date fossils older than that, perhaps realizing your error, you might reconsider your opinion.

Also, evolution assumes that fish turned into birds, etc. over time yet there has been no evidence of bones found to support this...why?
[/QUOTE]

Hmm, I've never heard of fish turning into birds, but there are MANY transional fossils, just use google to find them!

[Jacob_Rising]

You're kidding, hopefully.No, I'm not kidding.

It's my opinion that mankind really did talk to God, and that this Earth was surrounded in a pressurized atmosphere because there were oceans of water in the atmosphere and it caused people to live hundreds of years, and it caused them to be more intelligent.

The Earth is flat, that's just one subject.

How is it that the bible knew so much about science and the perfect way to live without microscopes?

The bible knows what is good for man to eat and what is bad for man to eat, it knows about germs, it explains how to keep diseases away insomuch that Jews were blamed with causing the plagues.

The Jews were blamed for plagues because they allready knew how to avoid disease, they knew what to do with waste, they knew what molds were not good. The Jews didn't get the plagues.

In the beginning.

Man spoke with God, Man lived hundreds of years and saw the cycles of the universe because they lived that long.

Where did the Mayans gain so much intelligence to know the cycles of the universe that come together in 2012?

Where did the Egyptians get the Knowledge to build scructures so precise that they can't even be duplicated?

But where are these Egyptians and Mayans now?

The only true people of antiquity left are the Jews because they lived by perfect rules.

But Most astounding is that they are still alive today after so many attempts of genocide and the fact that their future was allready written down.

There are only two explanations for the Jews to have survive and to have fulfilled the prophecies about them that made them a nation again.

Either God knew the future and he wrote it down or that so many people believed God that they took it upon themselves to fulfill them.

Nonetheless, All these ancient writings are coming true and there is no way to explain it.

There has to be a God, because no man can know the future.

[CMike11]

I can't speak for Christianity but some of the most notable scientists throughout history have been jews.

BTW IMO global warming is based on religion not science, but that is a different matter.

[gpd®]

I can't speak for Christianity but some of the most notable scientists throughout history have been jews.

BTW IMO global warming is based on religion not science, but that is a different matter.

I have heard scientists opposed to the warming scare that edible vegetation is up 5% since 2000 due to CO2.

I like to think it is God's way of meeting the demands of an exploding population.

[PercyVere]

No, I'm not kidding.

It's my opinion that mankind really did talk to God, and that this Earth was surrounded in a pressurized atmosphere because there were oceans of water in the atmosphere and it caused people to live hundreds of years, and it caused them to be more intelligent.You have any evidence to support this hypothesis? (Bible not considered evidence)

How is it that the bible knew so much about science and the perfect way to live without microscopes?The bible knows nothing of any value about science. What do you think the bible has taught us about science?

The bible knows what is good for man to eat and what is bad for man to eat, it knows about germs, it explains how to keep diseases away insomuch that Jews were blamed with causing the plagues.Through trial and error the Jews learned some good eating practices. They had no understanding of why the practices made any difference though.

Where did the Egyptians get the Knowledge to build scructures so precise that they can't even be duplicated?Trust me, a construction like the Petronas Towers require considerably more precision than the Pyramids.

The only true people of antiquity left are the Jews because they lived by perfect rules.Ever heard of the Chinese? Their written history predates Jewish written history, and unlike the old testament, their records are actually historical.

But Most astounding is that they are still alive today after so many attempts of genocide and the fact that their future was allready written down.I won't argue with you there. That the Jews have survived against all the **** that has been thrown at them is quite remarkable.

There are only two explanations for the Jews to have survive and to have fulfilled the prophecies about them that made them a nation again.

Either God knew the future and he wrote it down or that so many people believed God that they took it upon themselves to fulfill them.Or a mixture of luck, strong will and strong sense of identity meant they have not been eliminated like so many other cultures. They also have a strangely lucky position of being a central 'chosen' people for the biggest religion on earth.

Nonetheless, All these ancient writings are coming true and there is no way to explain it.Only in the same way that Nostradamus comes true ... by matching unfolding events with obscure passages. Nothing is predicted, only 'postdicted'.

There has to be a God, because no man can know the future.I must have missed the proof part of your argument.

[Stardust]

My point is that their rejection of evolution and, to a lesser degree, global warming, invovles the rejection of entire key principles of science. To reject evolution you must throw so many scientific concepts, methods and principles out the window.

To me, a rejection of evolution is proof that you just don't understand science as a whole.

Huh? How did "global warming" get into this debate?

And, no, I don't believe that questioning evolution makes one "not understand" science as a whole. The theory of evolution is a small segment of scientific thought, and in fact, is still being debated. Science has many different facets and venues - medicine, biology, chemistry, astonomy, physics, etc. Again, it doesn't make sense to me to make a blanket statement that "Christians hate science". This is kind of like saying "I noticed that atheists question a certain aspect of DNA structure. Therefore, they vehemently hate science". Huh?

[Koushi Shinigami]

No, I'm not kidding.

It's my opinion that mankind really did talk to God, and that this Earth was surrounded in a pressurized atmosphere because there were oceans of water in the atmosphere and it caused people to live hundreds of years, and it caused them to be more intelligent.



Should be simple enough to set up an experiment to test that theory. A hypobaric chamber and some time...





How is it that the bible knew so much about science and the perfect way to live without microscopes?

The bible knows what is good for man to eat and what is bad for man to eat, it knows about germs, it explains how to keep diseases away insomuch that Jews were blamed with causing the plagues.



Simple. Some people did something and they died. Other people saw that and figured out why. Then they decided to not do the things the dead people did.

[tracifish]

Why are so many Christians vehemently opposed to Science?

Why is it that straw-men can't seem to stop beating their wives?

[Scruffy]

People who hang on to the unproven theory of evolution, are just trying to run away from God. That is what the theory is about. It is used to disprove that God exists. Why else would they be so against "Intelligent Design"?

Some people don't want to admit that a good loving God created the universe because then it means there is someone they have to account to, for how they lived their life on Earth. So they hang on to a most ridiculous theory even though there's no evidence! And man's appearance on this planet does not even fit in with the evolutionist's timeline!

It is comfortable for evolutionists to think we came from monkeys, that way we are not any better than the animals. So than a lot of their sins can be justified, because we are just considered modified monkeys.

It is sad that people cling onto a theory that is just from someone's imagination. They go and search for old extinct monkey bones, and say that's us! Just like the tooth they found that evolutionists called the missing link. They created a whole lifestyle around the tooth. What the prehistoric man looked like, how he lived, what he ate. All from a tooth! Then they found out it was a tooth from an extinct pig!

Maybe that's why Christians are skeptical about "man's science". Because they are eventually found to be WRONG.

[captusa]

People who hang on to the unproven theory of evolution, are just trying to run away from God. That is what the theory is about. It is used to disprove that God exists. Why else would they be so against "Intelligent Design"?

When and where in the theory of evolution is there any statement of the non-existance of God.

And from what are the people who hang on the unproven theory of universal gravitaton ?
Why have they not recognized that God pulls down anything HE thinks shouldn't stay up ?
Why would stars stay up and then for no apparent reason fall ?
Why else would they be so against "Intelligent Falling"?

Some people don't want to admit that a good loving God created the universe because then it means there is someone they have to account to, for how they lived their life on Earth. So they hang on to a most ridiculous theory even though there's no evidence!
Just 150 years of geology, biology, paleontology, chemistry, anatomy all supporting evolution and none contradicting it.
Some of the particulars of Darwin's original theory have been corrected.
Who said, "There is none so blind as those that will not see." ?

And man's appearance on this planet does not even fit in with the evolutionist's timeline!
Evolution seeks to discover where man's appearance on this planet does fit in with the evolutionary timeline.
As more evidence becomes available the estimate gets more accurate.



It is comfortable for evolutionists to think we came from monkeys, that way we are not any better than the animals. So than a lot of their sins can be justified, because we are just considered modified monkeys.


Learn something about the theory of evolution before you criticize it.
Maybe if you understood it you would be more receptive.


It is sad that people cling onto a theory that is just from someone's imagination. They go and search for old extinct monkey bones, and say that's us!
Learn something about the theory of evolution before you criticize it.
Maybe if you understood it you would be more receptive.



Just like the tooth they found that evolutionists called the missing link. They created a whole lifestyle around the tooth. What the prehistoric man looked like, how he lived, what he ate. All from a tooth! Then they found out it was a tooth from an extinct pig!
Learn something about the theory of evolution before you criticize it.
Maybe if you understood it you would be more receptive.


Maybe that's why Christians are skeptical about "man's science". Because they are eventually found to be WRONG.

And that's why the leaders of the largest denomination of Christians accept evolution??????????????

[Jagergeist]

After reading the posts from the disturbing number of people who effortlessly dismiss evolution, showing a breathtaking lack of understanding of multiple disciplines in science, I remind myself why I generally steer clear of the RF pages. All I can say is that I am very thankful to those who put separation of church and state into play many years ago. I shudder to think a Christian caliphate could be teaching science in school right now, and how vastly different our understanding of the world would be due to it.

[Thor]

People who hang on to the unproven theory of evolution, are just trying to run away from God.


Unproven? Gravitational theory is also "unproven".

That is what the theory is about. It is used to disprove that God exists.

Who uses evolutionary theory to "disprove that God exists"? Because you can't disprove a deity using evolutionary theory. In fact, there's really no way to disprove the existence of a god. Or gremlins, trolls, fairies and winged horses.

Why else would they be so against "Intelligent Design"?


I can tell you why someone would be against "Intelligent Design". Because it is not science.

Some people don't want to admit that a good loving God created the universe because then it means there is someone they have to account to, for how they lived their life on Earth

No, some people see no evidence that supports the notion of a universe creating, all-powerful deity. And if this is what you believe, how do you account for the fact that atheists aren't running amuck?

So they hang on to a most ridiculous theory even though there's no evidence!

You mean like the "theory" that an invisible man in the sky created the universe and everything in it with a wave of his hand? Where is the evidence for that? And, by the way, there is plenty of evidence for evolutionary theory. Try looking up Tiktaalik or Archaeopteryx.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Why is it that straw-men can't seem to stop beating their wives?

Because straw-wives deserve it.

[captusa]

Why is it that straw-men can't seem to stop beating their wives?

To my knowledge straw men have stopped beating their wives.
(at least for a while)

[Lie Sniper]

[Learn something about the theory of evolution before you criticize it.
Maybe if you understood it you would be more receptive.



Learn something about the theory of evolution before you criticize it.
Maybe if you understood it you would be more receptive.




Learn something about the theory of evolution before you criticize it.
Maybe if you understood it you would be more receptive.



Is there an echo in here???;)

[Lie Sniper]

Who uses evolutionary theory to "disprove that God exists"? Because you can't disprove a deity using evolutionary theory. In fact, there's really no way to disprove the existence of a god. Or gremlins, trolls, fairies and winged horses.


How do Thor!

Actually, the other day I proved the existence of Paul Bunyan to the Capt!
We have the story along with Statues, Theme Parks and Monuments as evidence to back up that claim. ;)

I would agree though, disproving the existence of Paul Bunyan would be much more difficult.

[captusa]

Is there an echo in here???;)

The comment was appropriate and complete for all the statement for which it was used and repetition was appropriate for the audience.

[captusa]

My question is why are som many christians opposed to Christianity?

Shortest book in the world:
Christianity, the Christian Years.

[Lie Sniper]

The comment was appropriate and complete for all the statement for which it was used and repetition was appropriate for the audience.

NO argument here. Some things need to be said over and over for clarity. :cool:

[captusa]

How do Thor!

Actually, the other day I proved the existence of Paul Bunyan to the Capt!
We have the story along with Statues, Theme Parks and Monuments as evidence to back up that claim. ;)

I would agree though, disproving the existence of Paul Bunyan would be much more difficult.

You did not prove it but did provide evidence to support my contention that some historical characters have more evidence of their existance than some others.

[Lie Sniper]

You did not prove it but did provide evidence to support my contention that some historical characters have more evidence of their existance than some others.

True, maybe I didn't prove it to some, but I provided proof in the form of things you can see, as evidence. This should have been sufficient for those who put so much emphasis on "seeing is believing". If someone made the claim that Paul Bunyan had existed, you can see the evidence for yourself, so, this claim then could not be considered unfounded. :mrgreen:
Apparently "seeing is believing" is not always enough to prove something true.:think:

You believe the Evolutionary Theory to be true, based on strong evidence in the form of things you can see for yourself. (as do I)

Yet, you need more proof to believe in God, I would assume in the form of something you can see, yet when I pointed to things you can see that support the idea that Paul Bunyan existed, you still don't believe it. Why? You believe it when it comes to science. How would a deity, of any kind ever convince you of its existence?;)
Do you think you would believe in God, if God showed himself to you? I showed you evidence of Paul Bunyan and you still don't believe it? Why are you so selective in what you choose to believe as concrete evidence?:...........think:...


:hug: Have a Good weekend!

[Sceptic]

I don't believe that questioning evolution makes one "not understand" science as a whole. The theory of evolution is a small segment of scientific thought, and in fact, is still being debated.

In what way, precisely, is Evolution Theory "still being debated"?

[BillyBobUSA]

I live in Alabama ...


I think that kind of answers the question.

:lol:

[Koushi Shinigami]

Ahem.

ROLL TIDE!!!!!!

[Mike Griffith]

In what way, precisely, is Evolution Theory "still being debated"?

In every way, because the theory of evolution is nonsense and pseudo-science. It's only vehicle to explain change, i.e., natural selection, is nothing but a tautology that is fails horrendously to explain the complexity that we see in biochemical life alone, much less larger life.

The theory of evolution is like the Emperor's New Clothes. Once you get its advocates to finally, finally come down from their ivory towers and debate the theory based on is evidentiary merits, you quckly see that it's the biggest hoax in the history of the world.

Darwin got so many things wrong it's laughable. He thought biochemical life was simple. Now we know it's staggeringly complex.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=443

He thought the fossil record would show gradual development and change from species to species. It didn't take long before science discovered that the Cambrian Explosion thoroughly debunks that scenario.

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9701/chien.html

Christians are not opposed to science--true, genuine science. What we do oppose is the nonsense that's peddled as "science" in most of our schools, such as macroevolution and man-made global warming.

[noelle12]

My answer to the OP, because sometimes it's a really hard class. But I'm more opposed to math. Love history though.

[hben]

I live in Alabama and I noticed that I'm able to talk about almost every major school subject with complete ease and comfort. History, English, Math--no problem whatsoever. But when I start to touch the surface of Science, people look at me as if something's wrong with me.

When I talk about dinosaurs, they want to end the conversation.

When I talk about anything outside of the solar system, they start to deny basic information that is taught in 6th grade.

When I talk about what telescopes have been able to glimpse in the last 60 years, they completely deny the authenticity of those photographs.

When I tell them I watch the Science channel sometimes, they almost laugh to my face.

Everything else is perfectly okay to talk about but when I talk about anything scientific, it's just too much for them. Why? What is the big deal?

I realize there are theories they disagree with but why close their minds to common sense? There is mounting evidence that proves Metaphysics to be a valid branch of Science, there are dinosaur bones buried all of the world, scientists have been able to use the information they gathered to predict the movements of stars and planets with near-perfect precision, and some of the world's best inventions were created as a result of scientific research. We are adults, right? Why persist in showing disdain for these things?

Does your sixth grade science teacher teach any theories as fact? I only have a trouble with the teachers and teachings which mock the Bible as if it is just a book of fairy tales rather than truth. I have no problem at all with teachers or people who admit that no one really knows for sure how or when creation took place whenever they do so with respect for believers who accept the Biblical account of creation. The Bible only separates people into two categories. God says we are either believers or unbelievers. Whereas some Bible mockers like to categorize people as either geniuses or idiots depending on whether or not they accept all of their scientific theories as fact. IMHO

[Koushi Shinigami]

Whereas some Bible mockers like to categorize people as either geniuses or idiots depending on whether or not they accept all of their scientific theories as fact. IMHO

That is not limited to the "Bible mockers", as you describe them. Some believers should be downright ashamed of their own behaviour when discussing this topic.

[Tim]

Me thinks that there aren't really all that many Christians opposed to science and there aren't many scientist opposed to "god(s)", either. Many scientist may not believe in god(s) - although many do believe - but their scientific research doesn't involve trying to disprove god(s) either... the concept simply never enters the equation.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Me thinks that there aren't really all that many Christians opposed to science and there aren't many scientist opposed to "god(s)", either. Many scientist may not believe in god(s) - although many do believe - but their scientific research doesn't involve trying to disprove god(s) either... the concept simply never enters the equation.

:clap:

I'd imagine that most scientist's annoyance with the claims of some believers is the accusation by believers of something that the scientists are intent on doing something that in all truthfullness, never entered in to their (the scientist's) minds.

[HardHammer]

:clap:

I'd imagine that most scientist's annoyance with the claims of some believers is the accusation by believers of something that the scientists are intent on doing something that in all truthfullness, never entered in to their (the scientist's) minds.

Well, unless all scientists live in a bubble, I think it would be safe to say that they are aware of the Christians belief that God created everything, well most professing Christians at least.

In knowing this, do you believe they are fully capable of blocking this tid bit of information out of their head while specualting about a theory of how the universe came to be?

The thing I find most interesting is the subject of Sir Issac Newton, without question, IMHO at least, the most brilliant scientist of mankinds history to date. Followed by a close second of Albert Einstein.

Newton was devout believer in God, yet was able to invent THE mathmatical system that still to this day is the foundation of ALL Physics. He saw no problem with the belief that God created the universe. Newton once said: "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

Einstein once said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." . Science indeed provides mankind with some answers, but clearly does not provide them all.

I was watching the show on History channel the other night, "The Universe", and one of the scientist was talking and said "The more we learn about the Universe, the less we know". This apparent contradiction, I believe, express' the mind of the Believer, it doesn't matter what we know or don't know, our Trust in Gods Plan/Will is all that matters.

[captusa]

.....The thing I find most interesting is the subject of Sir Issac Newton, without question, IMHO at least, the most brilliant scientist of mankinds history to date. Followed by a close second of Albert Einstein.

While his introduction espouses God, notice the conspicuous absense of divine action in his theories.
Followed by a close second of Albert Einstein.

Newton was devout believer in God, yet was able to invent THE mathmatical system that still to this day is the foundation of ALL Physics. He saw no problem with the belief that God created the universe. Newton once said: "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."
Einstein once said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." . Science indeed provides mankind with some answers, but clearly does not provide them all.

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
He wrote, 'I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts.'22



I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

In it, Einstein said that "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

"For me," he added, "the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

[Koushi Shinigami]

While his introduction espouses God, notice the cospicuous absense of divine action in his theories.


Do you mean like:

"If two objects, of differing masses are dropped from the same height, and at the same time, God supports the heavier mass to ensure that it accelerates toward the Earth at the same rate as the object of lesser mass, and both will strike the ground at the same time."?

[captusa]

Do you mean like:

"If two objects, of differing masses are dropped from the same height, and at the same time, God supports the heavier mass to ensure that it accelerates toward the Earth at the same rate as the object of lesser mass, and both will strike the ground at the same time."?

Sorry, I missed that in my physics classes.
I must have had one of those Atheistic scientists that use science to attack religion for a professor.

[HardHammer]

While his introduction espouses God, notice the conspicuous absense of divine action in his theories.

You are correct, Einstein definately had his own thoughts about God, but it is obvious he was not compeltely devoid of the direct possiblity He was involved in mankinds life. Let us not forget, Einstein was just a man of this earth like the rest of us.

And of course you concentrate of the negative connotation, any thing less would not be expected from you, and leave out Newton all together of course.

[HardHammer]

Do you mean like:

"If two objects, of differing masses are dropped from the same height, and at the same time, God supports the heavier mass to ensure that it accelerates toward the Earth at the same rate as the object of lesser mass, and both will strike the ground at the same time."?

So you are a scientist also Kosh?, I can't say I agree with your theory though. but it surprises me not that you have molded into your own variant of belief to support your position. Golden Calf you know.

[Koushi Shinigami]

So you are a scientist also Kosh?, I can't say I agree with your theory though. but it surprises me not that you have molded into your own variant of belief to support your position. Golden Calf you know.

Once again, you miss the point.

[HardHammer]

Once again, you miss the point.

Not at all, I got the point, I just do not agree with the point giver.

You know what I mean, right?

[Koushi Shinigami]

indubitably

[captusa]

You are correct, Einstein definately had his own thoughts about God, but it is obvious he was not compeltely devoid of the direct possiblity He was involved in mankinds life. Let us not forget, Einstein was just a man of this earth like the rest of us.

........

Obviously he WAS compeltely (sic.)devoid of the direct possiblity GOD was involved in mankinds life.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

[PercyVere]

there are MANY transional fossils, just use google to find them!There's no point providing evidence of transitional fossils to creationists. If you have a transition between to stages of development in need of a fossil, as soon as the fossil is provided, the creationist now says ... ha! ... two transitions!!

The more fossil evidence provided, the more transitions they see.

[Fig Tree]

After reading the posts from the disturbing number of people who effortlessly dismiss evolution, showing a breathtaking lack of understanding of multiple disciplines in science, I remind myself why I generally steer clear of the RF pages. All I can say is that I am very thankful to those who put separation of church and state into play many years ago. I shudder to think a Christian caliphate could be teaching science in school right now, and how vastly different our understanding of the world would be due to it.

My friend, it is the fact that it is taught in schools with no alternative theories being discussed. Instead of allowing children to make informed decisions and invoke creative thinking, which alternative views allow, they are programming a group of individuals who will only approach the scientific observation from a subjective vice objective view. It is amazing when people make effortless statements that say christians do not understand science. Many of the greatest scientists in all scientific fields in history have been Christians.

Some from the past are as follows:
Roger Bacon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon), Otto Brunfels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Brunfels), William Turner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Turner), Giordano Bruno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno), John Napier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Napier), Johannes Kepler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler), Blaise Pascal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal), Robert Boyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Boyle), John Wallis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wallis), Isaac Newton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton), Isaac Milner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Milner), Gregor Mendel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel), Lord Kelvin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thomson,_1st_Baron_Kelvin), John Ambrose Fleming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ambrose_Fleming), Max Planck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck), Carlos Chagas Filho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Chagas_Filho), and C. F. von Weizsäcker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Friedrich_von_Weizs%C3%A4cker) to list just a few.
The highlighted ones are of greater renown. If you would like more details on the above individuals and what their contributions were, you can look it up in any textbook under the scientific field that they specialized in, as many of the contributions after them were from their works. Trying to prove something that does not exist is where the problem is. God wants us to understand his creation. He took great care in everything he constructed from the greatest of things to the microscopic. From the earthly to the heavenly. He has never denied us in the pursuit of knowledge when it works within his creation. You can easily Google the Christian scientific achievements and truly examine where we would be today without them and the influence they had. You cannot dismiss the nature of God, vice creating a fudge factor to make things work out, let us examine further and step back in awe and just say thank you for bringing me on this journey God.

One example of the fudge factor which carries on a common fairy tale:

Fairy Tale: Frog + kiss = prince

Fairy Tale: Frog + time = prince

Fact: Frog = Frog

Fact: Man = Man

Time is the crutch that evolutionists state changes everything, over time a rock will turn into a bird. Please, let us truly and objectively look into his creation and try to understand it with the time he has allotted for us.

[PercyVere]

My friend, it is the fact that it is taught in schools with no alternative theories being discussed.There is an alternative theory to evolution to explain the diversity of life and the origin of species? That's news to me.

[Fig Tree]

There is an alternative theory to evolution to explain the diversity of life and the origin of species? That's news to me.

Why yes, it is written in Genesis 1 Chapter 1. Including all the scientific studies that originated from those verses. Perhaps more of the teachings of some of the most renowned scientist in the study of creation: William Turner, John Ray, Carolus Linnaeus, Lars Levi Laestadius, Edward Hitchcock, Gregor Mendel, Philip Henry Gosse, Asa Gray, Louis Pasteur, Armand David, Robert Millikan, David Lack, and Theodosius Dobzhansky to list a few.

[captusa]

Originally Posted by Fig Tree
My friend, it is the fact that it is taught in schools with no alternative theories being discussed. Instead of allowing children to make informed decisions and invoke creative thinking, which alternative views allow, they are programming a group of individuals who will only approach the scientific observation from a subjective vice objective view. It is amazing when people make effortless statements that say christians do not understand science. Many of the greatest scientists in all scientific fields in history have been Christians.

As PercyVere pointed out there is no alternative theory to evolution to explain the diversity of life and the origin of species?

Even if Intelligent Design were to grow from an conjecture to a hypothesis to a theory it would not necessarily contradict the theory of evolution.
It might even confirm and add to the theory of evolution.
We will never know unless the "Discovery" Institute decides to do research instead of attempting subborn the violation of the 1st Amendment(Wedge strategy).

Why aren't you upset it is a fact that Gravity is taught in schools with no alternative theories being discussed. Instead of allowing children to make informed decisions and invoke creative thinking, which alternative views allow, they are programming a group of individuals who will only approach the scientific observation from a subjective vice (sic.) objective view.

[captusa]

It is amazing when people make effortless statements that say christians do not understand science. Many of the greatest scientists in all scientific fields in history have been Christians.



I certainly never made the statement that Christians do not understand science.
Many of the greatest scientists in all scientific fields (INCLUDING THE BIOLOGISTS, ANTHROPOGISTS AND PALEONTOLOGIST THAT DEVELOPED AND SUPPORT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION )in history have been Christians.

It is obvious that while most reasonably intelligent Christians DO understand science there are some self proclaimed Chistians (present company is included) that do not.

[Fig Tree]

Why aren't you upset it is a fact that Gravity is taught in schools with no alternative theories being discussed.

I am not upset about the Theory of Evolution being taught. It is disappointing that the biblical creation is not also taught. I was not raised as a Christian, yet as I went through school, I could sense something amise throughout this teaching. There are too many instances that evolution can't explain except by time, and that does not make sense. How would a bird evolve into a wood pecker by beating its brains in over time to get the meal? It never has made sense, evolution would select the traits and genes that would make things easier, was there a shortage of insects?

Is gravity in debate? I believe Sir Isaac Newton resolved that issue with proper scientific study and proofs. His studies resulted in Newtonian Laws that still form the basis for physics today. Is it worth time and money to study an alternative to Law? Should we also teach our children not to pay taxes, not follow speed limits, and that it is ok to steal?

[Fig Tree]

...there are some self proclaimed Chistians

And what would be your definition of a Christian? Are you that discerning that you have the heart and mind of God? Jesus himself stated that there would be tares among the wheat. Can you truly identify a tare? It is clear through scripture and with the help of the holy spirit that you can weed them out through a series of tests...do you wish to debate on this issue?

[captusa]

......
Is gravity in debate? I believe Sir Isaac Newton resolved that issue with proper scientific study and proofs. His studies resulted in Newtonian Laws that still form the basis for physics today. Is it worth time and money to study an alternative to Law? Should we also teach our children not to pay taxes, not follow speed limits, and that it is ok to steal?


Einstein's theory of Gravity pointed out contradictions to Newton's Theories.

I do not see a logical connection with the fact that subatomic particles to not follow Newton's laws and the suggestion to speed, not pay taxes or steal.
Enlighten me, please.

[captusa]

And what would be your definition of a Christian? Are you that discerning that you have the heart and mind of God? Jesus himself stated that there would be tares among the wheat. Can you truly identify a tare? It is clear through scripture and with the help of the holy spirit that you can weed them out through a series of tests...do you wish to debate on this issue?[


I do not claim to be able to define or identify who is or is not a Christian and unlike you, I do not to have the heart and mind of God to the degree that even with the help of the Holy Spirit can weed out the non-Christians.


My only point was I have no way of determining which if any of those who proclaim themselves to be Christians are Christians.
Some have suggested that those who accept the fact that evolution has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. (Not completely proven as that is scientifically impossible)

[Fig Tree]

Some have suggested that those who accept the fact that evolution has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. (Not completely proven as that is scientifically impossible)

I can respect acceptance in evolution, to a person of little faith, it would be easy to accept the doubts it would pose, but I would also challenge the opposition to that as well. Why is it ok to challenge the biblical basis for the origin of man yet it is ruled and labeled un-Christian to challenge Evolution? Evolution like Creationism both have unexplained conditions. People have closed the door on the unexplained on the belief of the unseen which is faith. It is pointless for me to explain scripture to you as you stated yourself that you do not have not received Jesus into your heart and accepted the gift of the Holy Spirit as most scripture would be foolishness to you. I invite you to look at the other side of the house, if you were no interested why would you be here? It took alot to sway me from one end of the spectrum to the other, I ask you at least read the bible from an objective view from cover to cover. I read the Old Testament twice before I was a Christian. I thought to myself, man God was really mean, always irradiating entire civilizations. I also read on some other cultures and other theories of our being here from alien implantation to evolution from apes. For times sake the best example for God calling me is similar to Apostle Paul. I would find enjoyment in badgering Christians for their ludicrous beliefs and commonly debate Christians until they could not answer a question. If they answered anything related to God, it was not good enough for me. I had to have proof, something tangible. Yet deep down inside I was truly insecure, a man of little faith in anything, even the theories that I have studied. The reason being is because I could trust no one, especially if it came from man. I thought foolishly that since the Bible was written by man that I could not trust it as well. The reason is because I had not discovered the creator. I had not accepted his son. I had submitted to his will. I had to have an experience. That changed one day, and I would be happy to explain that to you, yet it would sound foolish because after all it is my experience and not yours. I can only explain with certainty is that my ways were not his ways and I did not seek him earnestly. Yet one day when I had no answers for the situation I was in and was in total despair, I started reading in Matthew, scripture grabbed my heart, it was relevant, the answer was there. That same night I had a revelation dream that once again explained a different perspective. The next day I went to church and a sermon was on bring down the barriers of my heart (I wept profusely). I gave my life to Christ that very day. Its about his timing not mine. Its his perspective not mine. I held a barrier in my heart that was impenetrable, but he broke through. He knew my heart, and once I was able to fully understand that, I could trust him completely. Over the next months he revealed to me the troubles in my life and the life changing effects that were necessary to construct the person I am today and also that even though I was not a Christian, he was still in my life. Some say if we are Christians and believe in Predestination that we are devoid of free-will, yet I can surely say God's ways are not our ways, he did not force me into his will, he was always there, waiting for me to come home, I just had to make the choice to find my way home after he revealed himself in my life. If you are truly looking for answers, read the Bible.

[captusa]

[][/COLOR]

I can respect acceptance in evolution, to a person of little faith, it would be easy to accept the doubts it would pose, but I would also challenge the opposition to that as well. Why is it ok to challenge the biblical basis for the origin of man yet it is ruled and labeled un-Christian to challenge Evolution? Evolution like Creationism both have unexplained conditions. People have closed the door on the unexplained on the belief of the unseen which is faith. It is pointless for me to explain scripture to you as you stated yourself that you do not have not received Jesus into your heart and accepted the gift of the Holy Spirit as most scripture would be foolishness to you. I invite you to look at the other side of the house, if you were no interested why would you be here? It took alot to sway me from one end of the spectrum to the other, I ask you at least read the bible from an objective view from cover to cover. I read the Old Testament twice before I was a Christian. I thought to myself, man God was really mean, always irradiating entire civilizations. I also read on some other cultures and other theories of our being here from alien implantation to evolution from apes. For times sake the best example for God calling me is similar to Apostle Paul. I would find enjoyment in badgering Christians for their ludicrous beliefs and commonly debate Christians until they could not answer a question. If they answered anything related to God, it was not good enough for me. I had to have proof, something tangible. Yet deep down inside I was truly insecure, a man of little faith in anything, even the theories that I have studied. The reason being is because I could trust no one, especially if it came from man. I thought foolishly that since the Bible was written by man that I could not trust it as well. The reason is because I had not discovered the creator. I had not accepted his son. I had submitted to his will. I had to have an experience. That changed one day, and I would be happy to explain that to you, yet it would sound foolish because after all it is my experience and not yours. I can only explain with certainty is that my ways were not his ways and I did not seek him earnestly. Yet one day when I had no answers for the situation I was in and was in total despair, I started reading in Matthew, scripture grabbed my heart, it was relevant, the answer was there. That same night I had a revelation dream that once again explained a different perspective. The next day I went to church and a sermon was on bring down the barriers of my heart (I wept profusely). I gave my life to Christ that very day. Its about his timing not mine. Its his perspective not mine. I held a barrier in my heart that was impenetrable, but he broke through. He knew my heart, and once I was able to fully understand that, I could trust him completely. Over the next months he revealed to me the troubles in my life and the life changing effects that were necessary to construct the person I am today and also that even though I was not a Christian, he was still in my life. Some say if we are Christians and believe in Predestination that we are devoid of free-will, yet I can surely say God's ways are not our ways, he did not force me into his will, he was always there, waiting for me to come home, I just had to make the choice to find my way home after he revealed himself in my life. If you are truly looking for answers, read the Bible. [/]
[COLOR="Orange"]
I've read the Bible.
I also do not make hasty generalizations about groups including Christians.
If your acceptance of religion has provided you with confidence and security, I am happy for you.
If you wish to convince others to follow your example in an open forum fine.
This is a forum for the discussion of religion.
When you put fourth the hypothesis that science is a challenge to your religious beliefs in an open forum you will find both Christians and non-Christians disagreeing with you.
You probably know a great deal more about the N.T. than I do but far less about science and epistomology.

Creationism has rightly been classified as a religious concept.
If there was any reasonable amount of non-religious evidence that supported Creationism there would be some reason to present it as science.
Lacking any basis other then the tenets of a religion there is absolutely no justification for presenting it as science.
The Supreme Court and the "Discovery Institute" both accepted that.
The Supreme Court by recognizing that presenting it as science in a public school is teaching a specific religion as fact and the "Discovery Institute" by using subtrafuge (lying) to vainly introduce Creationism into a legitimate science thinly disguised as a scientific theory.
Of course fooling only those who have not not achieved an elementary understanding of science.

[HardHammer]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][size="5"][color="SandyBrown"]Obviously he WAS compeltely (sic.)devoid of the direct possiblity GOD was involved in mankinds life.

He can slice, he can dice, but he still can't convince. You know, opnions. Even Einstein had one.

[THE LIGHT]

According to most of the Scientific community, there is an extremely high probability that life exists on other planets throughout the universe--somewhere between 98 to 100%. My Minister friend is completely convinced that this is impossible because the Bible says that God created man and man alone in his own image.

Who's right and who's wrong?

There is zero evidence of life on other planets so I will let you decide who is right and who is wrong.

[captusa]

He can slice, he can dice, but he still can't convince. You know, opnions. Even Einstein had one.


Your statement":
You are correct, Einstein definately had his own thoughts about God, but it is obvious he was not compeltely devoid of the direct possiblity He was involved in mankinds life.
.....

You contend that Einstein WAS NOT devoid of the possibility that He (GOD) was involved in mankind's life.


I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
(Albert Einstein)
The above statement indicates that Einstein's concept of a creator completely denies the possibility of God involved in mankinds life.

[Quantrill]

To The Light (reply #198)

Pleased to meet you. If there is zero evidence that there is life on other planets, that can only mean that this scientific community that believes it is exercising faith. Interesting.

Quantrill

[sgtmac_46]

I am not upset about the Theory of Evolution being taught. It is disappointing that the biblical creation is not also taught. I was not raised as a Christian, yet as I went through school, I could sense something amise throughout this teaching. There are too many instances that evolution can't explain except by time, and that does not make sense. How would a bird evolve into a wood pecker by beating its brains in over time to get the meal? It never has made sense, evolution would select the traits and genes that would make things easier, was there a shortage of insects?

Is gravity in debate? I believe Sir Isaac Newton resolved that issue with proper scientific study and proofs. His studies resulted in Newtonian Laws that still form the basis for physics today. Is it worth time and money to study an alternative to Law? Should we also teach our children not to pay taxes, not follow speed limits, and that it is ok to steal?


I won't address the entirety of your post, I will make a simple point, though, with a question..........explain what makes gravity work, lets see how well you understand the science of even something as 'simple' as gravity. ;)

[pinqy]

To The Light (reply #198)

Pleased to meet you. If there is zero evidence that there is life on other planets, that can only mean that this scientific community that believes it is exercising faith. Interesting.

Quantrill
You would be right IF the scientific community claimed that they KNOW there is life on other planets.

As it is, there is no known reason why there cannot be life on other planets, and our methods of detection are not yet able to tell for sure if there is. So the answer is that there is a good probability of life on other planets, but we don't know for sure. There's no "faith" involved.

[Lie Sniper]

[COLOR=#e1dfdf][FONT=Verdana].....SNIP....... Yet one day when I had no answers for the situation I was in and was in total despair, I started reading in Matthew, scripture grabbed my heart, it was relevant, the answer was there. That same night I had a revelation dream that once again explained a different perspective. The next day I went to church and a sermon was on bring down the barriers of my heart (I wept profusely). I gave my life to Christ that very day. Its about his timing not mine. .......Snip.........

Fig, Thank you for this wonderful testimony! I very much enjoyed it!
I Just want to highlight one thing. This part above is similar to my experience. I would like to offer advice, in relation to yours and my experience. What happened to you and me, I've heard termed listening for the creature. This can be applied when dealing with non-believers. In my experience you can prostelyze until you are blue in the face, yet see no results. The words of the Gospel are offencive to those who are not ready to hear it or have it applied to their life.
'Listening for the Creature" is used when someone makes an open admission that they are not in control, usually in despair and hopelessness. Thus, they are admitting they are a Creature, and open to hearing answers(Gospel). Understanding its not my job to convince anyone, (I leave that responsibility to the Holy Spirit), and understanding, all sin is a form of rebellion, I'm able to carry on conversations, and befriend, non-believers, regardless of their disrespect toward my belief. That is between them and God. Because faith is essentially unexplainable, as a method of convincing non-believers, and understanding my role to offer the gospel, and not to convince, I've found a whole new level of peace in my life as a believer in Christ. I can except what I see in this world as answers for this world, yet my faith remains intact. Until a person has experience with the Holy Spirit working in them, how can we possibly expect them to understand it and how can we possibly expect them to except it as truth? IMO.

I'm not saying you are doing anything wrong, I just wanted to comment on my experience as it relates to yours. ;)

[Thank you Troops]

I know of no believers that are apposed to science. Christian schools teach science by teachers with advanced degrees from the same universities as secular teachers. We just give God credit for science.

[Thor]

How do Thor!

Actually, the other day I proved the existence of Paul Bunyan to the Capt!
We have the story along with Statues, Theme Parks and Monuments as evidence to back up that claim. ;)

I would agree though, disproving the existence of Paul Bunyan would be much more difficult.

You can also "prove" the existence of Santa Claus in much the same way. There are pictures of him, statues made in his honor, books written about him, and people will attest to having seen him. You also see people warning their children to be good or Santa won't visit. And, of course, there are hundreds of songs that are sung about (or in praise to) him. Not to mention that his image is petty much ubiquitous. We also know where Santa lives, how he transports himself (we even know the names of his reindeer!), how he is able to make millions of toys, how he gets into houses, etc. We even know that he's married and that he's hundreds of years old! I would go so far as to say that there is much more evidence for the existence of Santa Claus than there is for the existence of Jesus.

[captusa]

I won't address the entirety of your post, I will make a simple point, though, with a question..........explain what makes gravity work, lets see how well you understand the science of even something as 'simple' as gravity. ;)

I'm tired of hearing about gravity.
Gravity is something Atheist scientists foisted on the public to deny God.
God decides what is to fall and what is to stay up in the air.
Do you think it was an accident that atoms joined together to make chlorine gas and made it heavier than air and Helium lighter than air.
Why do these so called scientists refuse to allow intelligent falling to be presented along with "gravity"?

[Thor]

I am not upset about the Theory of Evolution being taught. It is disappointing that the biblical creation is not also taught.

Why would it be taught? It's NOT science.

[Greyclouds]

Why yes, it is written in Genesis 1 Chapter 1. Including all the scientific studies that originated from those verses. Perhaps more of the teachings of some of the most renowned scientist in the study of creation: William Turner, John Ray, Carolus Linnaeus, Lars Levi Laestadius, Edward Hitchcock, Gregor Mendel, Philip Henry Gosse, Asa Gray, Louis Pasteur, Armand David, Robert Millikan, David Lack, and Theodosius Dobzhansky to list a few.

Gregor Mendel's initial study of sexual genetic recombination did not include a "God clause." It did not take into account spiritual activity on a physical world, for that would have indicated that there was a basal level of unpredictability beyond physical description.

Instead, his conclusions were supported mathematically; by statistics more specifically.


Richard Dawkin's proposed model for refocusing the Theory of Evolution did not include a "God clause." It did not take into account spiritual activity on a physical world, and instead sought to change the focus of Evolutionary biologists from the "organism" to the "gene" as the primary unit of evolution.

His conclusions were also supported by statistical confirmation of physical data.


Yet, you discard the later and keep the former? Why?

[Greyclouds]

I am not upset about the Theory of Evolution being taught. It is disappointing that the biblical creation is not also taught. I was not raised as a Christian, yet as I went through school, I could sense something amise throughout this teaching. There are too many instances that evolution can't explain except by time, and that does not make sense. How would a bird evolve into a wood pecker by beating its brains in over time to get the meal? It never has made sense, evolution would select the traits and genes that would make things easier, was there a shortage of insects?

I'd be more happy to explain this in gory detail in the General Interest forum if you are up for it. It all has to do with the mutation of easily altered phenotypes, and the ability of an organism to use those phenotypes in order to expand to a new environmental niche.

I think that you're still hung up on Lamarkian precepts of "desired" adaptation. That theory was discarded long, long ago, in light of recent information on Molecular Biology.


Is gravity in debate? I believe Sir Isaac Newton resolved that issue with proper scientific study and proofs. His studies resulted in Newtonian Laws that still form the basis for physics today. Is it worth time and money to study an alternative to Law? Should we also teach our children not to pay taxes, not follow speed limits, and that it is ok to steal?


The theory of gravitation is very much in debate.

Haven't you heard of CERN? They're trying to discover if there really is a Higg's Boson.

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/

[Greyclouds]

I won't address the entirety of your post, I will make a simple point, though, with a question..........explain what makes gravity work, lets see how well you understand the science of even something as 'simple' as gravity. ;)

Thank you, Sir :clap:

[captusa]

Originally Posted by Fig Tree
I am not upset about the Theory of Evolution being taught. It is disappointing that the biblical creation is not also taught.

Science is taught in science class.
Presenting a religious belief as science violates the 1st Amendment.
Biblical creation is by name and definition a religious concept.
If the creation belief of one religion is presented with no supporting scientific evidence why shouldn't EVERY creation myth of every other religion is not also taught ?
I know the Biblical creation story is not a myth but it has no more evidence to support it than do the ones that are myths.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I'm tired of hearing about gravity.
Gravity is something Atheist scientists foisted on the public to deny God.
God decides what is to fall and what is to stay up in the air.
Do you think it was an accident that atoms joined together to make chlorine gas and made it heavier than air and Helium lighter than air.
Why do these so called scientists refuse to allow intelligent falling to be presented along with "gravity"?

:clap:

I tried to submit Newton's Theory of Intelligent Falling earlier. No one liked it. :(

:cool:

[Koushi Shinigami]

Science is taught in science class.

It really is a crying shame that there is no other place on Earth to present creation theory, other than in a public school science class....

[Lie Sniper]

You can also "prove" the existence of Santa Claus in much the same way. There are pictures of him, statues made in his honor, books written about him, and people will attest to having seen him. You also see people warning their children to be good or Santa won't visit. And, of course, there are hundreds of songs that are sung about (or in praise to) him. Not to mention that his image is petty much ubiquitous. We also know where Santa lives, how he transports himself (we even know the names of his reindeer!), how he is able to make millions of toys, how he gets into houses, etc. We even know that he's married and that he's hundreds of years old! I would go so far as to say that there is much more evidence for the existence of Santa Claus than there is for the existence of Jesus.

NO argument here. So why don't you believe in Santa Claus?
All the predetermined indicators are there in the form of observable evidence. What's missing that would convince you of his existence?

[captusa]

Originally Posted by Spin Master
According to most of the Scientific community, there is an extremely high probability that life exists on other planets throughout the universe--somewhere between 98 to 100%. My Minister friend is completely convinced that this is impossible because the Bible says that God created man and man alone in his own image.

Who's right and who's wrong?

There is zero evidence of life on other planets so I will let you decide who is right and who is wrong.

The Scientific community is right and your Minister friend is wrong.

The Scientific community states the PROBABILITY that life exists.
The fact that life DOES exist on one planet and that there are billions of galaxies each with billions of star with billions of solar systems defines a high probabilty of life occurring elsewhere.

As for the Minister's point.
The Minister says Bible says that God created man and man alone in his own image.
1) If God created life on one planet (and thought it good according to Genesis) what makes your minister so positive that God would not do it again.
2) even if God created man in his own image only once, we are talking about life on other planets not specifically human life.

Stating that something that happened once (for whatever cause) cannot possibly happen againis in itself a contradiction.

[Lie Sniper]

science is taught in science class.
Presenting a religious belief as science violates the 1st amendment.
biblical creation is by name and definition a religious concept.
If the creation belief of one religion is presented with no supporting scientific evidence why shouldn't every creation myth of every other religion is not also taught ?
i know the biblical creation story is not a myth but it has no more evidence to support it than do the ones that are myths.

+1

[Lie Sniper]

It really is a crying shame that there is no other place on Earth to present creation theory, other than in a public school science class....

It would be a short class.


"Welcome Ladies and Gentlemen to "Creation Theory!"
"Please open your laptops and we will begin."

"OK, everyone ready? "

"GOD DID IT!"

"Now write that down and then Repeat it."

"Good, Good, Congratulations everyone."

" You have successfully completed "Creation Theory."

"Have a nice day!"

[An American Patriot]

Presenting a religious belief as science violates the 1st Amendment.


How is that against the 1st Amendment?

[An American Patriot]

The Scientific community is right and your Minister friend is wrong.




You mean, the scientific community is right... today. Might find out tomorrow they are wrong.... but today, they are right!

[Koushi Shinigami]

It would be a short class.


"Welcome Ladies and Gentlemen to "Creation Theory!"
"Please open your laptops and we will begin."

"OK, everyone ready? "

"GOD DID IT!"

"Now write that down and then Repeat it."

"Good, Good, Congratulations everyone."

" You have successfully completed "Creation Theory."

"Have a nice day!"

:)) Good point.

[Koushi Shinigami]

There is zero evidence of life on other planets so I will let you decide who is right and who is wrong.

Well that depends on which planets you are talking about. For the 8 planents in our solar system, we are pretty sure that there is life on only one of them. But even at that, not all the evidence is in yet. There might be life on some of the moons of other planets.

For planets outside of our solar system, there's not enough evidence or knowledge yet to say there is life out there or that there is not life out there. So futher study is needed.

[Thor]

NO argument here. So why don't you believe in Santa Claus?
All the predetermined indicators are there in the form of observable evidence. What's missing that would convince you of his existence?

Why don't I believe in Santa Claus? Because a little research will reveal how the Santa Claus story came about and developed over time. What's "missing" is confirming evidence that the particulars of the story are real. No one has ever actually found a workshop at the North Pole, for example. Same thing with Jesus (or god in general). There is nothing that confirms the veracity of Biblical accounts.

[Thank you Troops]

I had a science kit as a kid, I am not opposed to science.

[captusa]

Well that depends on which planets you are talking about. For the 8 planents in our solar system, we are pretty sure that there is life on only one of them. But even at that, not all the evidence is in yet. There might be life on some of the moons of other planets.

For planets outside of our solar system, there's not enough evidence or knowledge yet to say there is life out there or that there is not life out there. So futher study is needed.

And add the probabilty for billions of planets (and moons) in billions of stars in billions of galaxies (and a Deity that may not have created life in the last few hundred millenia WHO has an infinite amount of time on HIS hands.)

[Alamoman]

I think "so many Christians" might be somewhat of a generalization. I don't know one Christian who is opposed to or turns a blind eye to science. Maybe that could be the difference between parts of Alabama and San Antonio, Texas...? Not sure.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I think "so many Christians" might be somewhat of a generalization. I don't know one Christian who is opposed to or turns a blind eye to science. Maybe that could be the difference between parts of Alabama and San Antonio, Texas...? Not sure.

Is San Antonio close to Houston? That could be it. LOTS of science in Houston.... "Houston, we have a problem."

[Alamoman]

According to most of the Scientific community, there is an extremely high probability that life exists on other planets throughout the universe--somewhere between 98 to 100%. My Minister friend is completely convinced that this is impossible because the Bible says that God created man and man alone in his own image.

Who's right and who's wrong?
I've never seen that high of a percentage (98-100). Can you provide a link to that information...? Thank you.

[PercyVere]

There are too many instances that evolution can't explain except by time, and that does not make sense.That's OK then, we happen to have loads of time to work with. Billions of years in fact. The human mind cannot grasp how long that is, any more than it can grasp how big the observable universe is.

Is gravity in debate? I believe Sir Isaac Newton resolved that issue with proper scientific study and proofs. His studies resulted in Newtonian Laws that still form the basis for physics today. Is it worth time and money to study an alternative to Law?Einstein seemed to think so.

[PercyVere]

I am not upset about the Theory of Evolution being taught. It is disappointing that the biblical creation is not also taught.Biblical creation is not a scientific theory.

[PercyVere]

There is zero evidence of life on other planets so I will let you decide who is right and who is wrong.There is, however, ever-increasing evidence to say that planets similar to our own are common enough to exist in huge numbers. In fact, as time goes on, scientists will very likely be able to tell us that the circumstances of this planet which allowed life to form are really not especially rare.

True, we have no evidence of life elsewhere as yet, but it would be fantastically arrogant of us to strongly believe that only our our planet does life exist.

[PercyVere]

I had a science kit as a kid, I am not opposed to science.Do you reject evolution and all its works?

[Fig Tree]

Bottom line is that we all hold our trust. Non-believers hold fast to the probabilities generated by man. I hold fast to the fact that my God has my soul for eternity and I will do everything in my power and his to serve him. I know it does not mean anything to Non-believers but I will quote the heart of the bible because after all this is a religion forum:


From Psalm 118 verse 8 (King James and New King James Version)
It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

From Psalm 118 verse 8 (American Standard Version)
It is better to take refuge in Jehovah Than to put confidence in man.

From Psalm 118 verse 8 (New International Version)
It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man.

From Psalm 118 verse 8 (New Living Translation)
It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in people.

If you want to really know something go to the heart of it. By the way, the next verse nine is worded the same but it changes man to princes or celebrities. I thank my God for giving us the avenue to freely discuss and share our views. We often loose sight of this that we can freely discuss our views. That is what makes this country the shining light on the hill. Even though we have our disagreements, in the end we must come together and work together. Today's Christians do not oppose science, perhaps Spin Master, you have been speaking to the wrong Christians. As we share our debates, let us also recognize the troops who also allowed us to rejoice in this freedom. It is a complete sacrifice that they make to serve this great country and we often fail to recognize it as well, because most people have never experienced it. I can say it was one of the greatest experiences I have ever faced.

[captusa]

You mean, the scientific community is right... today. Might find out tomorrow they are wrong.... but today, they are right!

There IS a high probability that there is life somewhere else in the universe.
Even if there really is no other life it would not contradict the FACT that the probabilty that there is is still high.

[captusa]

[]. I hold fast to the fact that my God has my soul for eternity and I will do everything in my power and his to serve him. I know it does not mean anything to Non-believers but I will quote the heart of the bible because after all this is a religion forum:[/COLOR]
[/FONT][/COLOR]


The point is that you "hold fast to the fact that my God has my soul for eternity and will do everything in my power and his to serve HIM" is your religious belief.
For the government to establish your religious belief as fact and have it taught as fact in public school as science is government establishing your religious opinions over those of others.
No one objects to your regretting that your religion is nottaught as fact by the government but you therefore are objecting to the U.S. Constitution.

'

[Koushi Shinigami]

Do you reject evolution and all its works?

Sounds like a creed.

[Fig Tree]

For the government to establish your religious belief as fact and have it taught as fact in public school as science is government establishing your religious opinions over those of others.
No one objects to your regretting that your religion is nottaught as fact by the government but you therefore are objecting to the U.S. Constitution.
'
We seem to forget the constitution and the founding fathers who created it. We also try to warp the constitution into something it is not. It is not a living document, we do not alter it to suit our needs, we follow it. Let us look at the words of the
First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where my friend does it say what you are saying? Just like truly interpreting the bible, you must use it in historical context, the language of the time, and the culture of the time and then apply it to today’s language and culture. What was the reason that this amendment was written for? Why did people come from other countries to the United States? They came for the freedom from the persecution and to practice freely their religious beliefs. The founding fathers wanted to ensure that the people would have a voice and freedom in all avenues of life in that day. Now let us apply it to today’s standards and let us see if we are following the constitution as written. Do we allow all voices to be heard or are there movements afoot to squander those freedoms?

Amendment two

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Why, what was the purpose of this? They wanted to ensure freedom reigned because evil exists in this world. They wanted to ensure that We the People, if necessary, could fight against an oppressive Government should it emerge. Are there any movements to deny people this right? Why? What is the percentage crimes that have been committed with a gun? What is the percentage of those crimes have been committed with a gun involved unregistered gun owners? I think we will find the figures in favor of the founding fathers. Unregistered gun owners are still going to get their guns the way the always have...illegally. Where does that leave We the People? Where is our freedom when they know we cannot have a weapon? When evil is unchecked it will not deteriorate, it will multiply.

Then let us look at some of the most famous inspiring words of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Is it really unclear that the acknowledgement of God was not present in the Government of the time? Over 40% of the founding fathers had christian seminary degrees.

[captusa]

QUOTE=Fig Tree;49605311We seem to forget the constitution and the founding fathers who created it. We also try to warp the constitution into something it is not. ....

What was the reason that this amendment was written for? Why did people come from other countries to the United States? They came for the freedom from the persecution and to practice freely their religious beliefs.
First you are warping history.
Religion had nothing to do with the extablishment of Jamestown Colony.
The Pilgrims DID come for the freedom from the persecution and to practice freely their religious beliefs.
You omitted the fact that they also did not want to be around anyone with another religion.'
They wanted freedom for their religion and tolerance for none other.
They banished Christians who didn't completely agree with them (like wanting to celibrate Christmas and they hung people who they believed worshipped a different Deity (Satan).

Their intolerance was good reason to forbid establishment of religion in the newly formed U.S.A.

Most states required a religious test to hold office and therefore most of the delegates had passed a religious test to represent their states.
Even before there was a Bill of Rights the framers of the Constitution forbade a religious test for office.

OBVIOUSLY the founding fathers had good reasons not to allow establishment of religion.

Many people do not seem to understand that under the Constitution the Constitution the may not forbid the free excercise of a religion logically imply the that free excercise of one religion cannot limit the free excercise of another.

If the free excercise of my religion requires the sacrifice of one Baptist per week do you believe the 1st Amendment forbids the government from "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

The freedom of speech does not imply the government can require me to listen to your free speech.

The concept is simple.
You freedom to move your fist stops before it reaches my nose.

[Snow]

I think "so many Christians" might be somewhat of a generalization. I don't know one Christian who is opposed to or turns a blind eye to science. Maybe that could be the difference between parts of Alabama and San Antonio, Texas...? Not sure.

I know plenty - many such "fundamentalistically" oriented right here on this site who turn a blind eye to any science that interferes with their dogma.

[Fig Tree]

You omitted the fact that they also did not want to be around anyone with another religion.'
They wanted freedom for their religion and tolerance for none other.
They banished Christians who didn't completely agree with them (like wanting to celibrate Christmas and they hung people who they believed worshipped a different Deity (Satan).


You are absolutely correct. These people did some horrible things to other people. There are many examples of Puritanical behavior amongst God's people throughout history. Jesus himself said that there would be tares amongst the wheat. Yet scripture does also state to cast out the unbeliever from your midst. It does not state to kill them, which was the isolated events in Salem. I cannot possibly know what was in their minds when they would torture those people. We all our sinners and fall short in the face of God. There were many events happening in the area of Salem that the Puritans believed to be the wrath of God. A believer will look to himself when afflictions are happening in their lives and not to others. There was obviously a frenzy going on trying to figure out why God was punishing them. The same human condition is even present in today's society. We want to believe that by elimination of what we think the cause is of the problem is going to solve it. (i.e. boot all the Republicans in 2006 and 2008...now look at the mess we are in...it is not fixed yet...Lets crucify Bush!!) We hate to look inward at ourselves and say, I did it to myself. The elimination of the so called witches did not eliminate the plight that they experienced. Yet it is apparent that they did finally get the clue and did repent for their sins against the Holy and Almighty God. It was then that they began to prosper. Is that coincidence or the reason in the first place? I am no better than you my friend, we must continually examine ourselves and our actions.


Their intolerance was good reason to forbid establishment of religion in the newly formed U.S.A.


The purpose was not to establish a uniform religion as the English did with the Act of Uniformity of 1662. By putting it into law, all religious beliefs would be protected if they did not interfere with each other.


Many people do not seem to understand that under the Constitution the Constitution the may not forbid the free excercise of a religion logically imply the that free excercise of one religion cannot limit the free excercise of another.


Exactly



If the free excercise of my religion requires the sacrifice of one Baptist per week do you believe the 1st Amendment forbids the government from "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".


Would that no contradict your statement above? If your religion is killing the people of another religion, would that not be prohibiting the free practice the Baptist person's right to conduct his religious requirements? No were in the doctrine does My God require me to sacrifice another person to him. The sacrifice is already made and covers us all. We must hold faith in the believe that his blood that was spilled was for us. Even with the Jewish community God did not require human sacrifices, with the exception of Abraham and his son, yet the was not a requirement but a test of Abraham's faith.


The concept is simple.
You freedom to move your fist stops before it reaches my nose.


I am not one to judge, but hostility is not the answer in this or any forum. You are in a religious forum, did I raise my hand to you my friend or speak words of truth? Are you saying that Christians are hate mongers? One of the ten commandments is to love your neighbor. Jesus commanded us to love others as we love ourselves. I do not want to perish in the flames of hell for eternity and guess what, I don't want others to either. Is that hate?

[texan_rep]

Bottom line is that we all hold our trust. Non-believers hold fast to the probabilities generated by man. I hold fast to the fact that my God has my soul for eternity and I will do everything in my power and his to serve him. I know it does not mean anything to Non-believers but I will quote the heart of the bible because after all this is a religion forum:

<snip>


False dichotomy.

[texan_rep]

Is San Antonio close to Houston? That could be it. LOTS of science in Houston.... "Houston, we have a problem."

200 miles

[texan_rep]

You are absolutely correct. These people did some horrible things to other people. There are many examples of Puritanical behavior amongst God's people throughout history. Jesus himself said that there would be tares amongst the wheat. Yet scripture does also state to cast out the unbeliever from your midst. It does not state to kill them, which was the isolated events in Salem. I cannot possibly know what was in their minds when they would torture those people. We all our sinners and fall short in the face of God. There were many events happening in the area of Salem that the Puritans believed to be the wrath of God. A believer will look to himself when afflictions are happening in their lives and not to others. There was obviously a frenzy going on trying to figure out why God was punishing them. The same human condition is even present in today's society. We want to believe that by elimination of what we think the cause is of the problem is going to solve it. (i.e. boot all the Republicans in 2006 and 2008...now look at the mess we are in...it is not fixed yet...Lets crucify Bush!!) We hate to look inward at ourselves and say, I did it to myself. The elimination of the so called witches did not eliminate the plight that they experienced. Yet it is apparent that they did finally get the clue and did repent for their sins against the Holy and Almighty God. It was then that they began to prosper. Is that coincidence or the reason in the first place? I am no better than you my friend, we must continually examine ourselves and our actions.


Don't leave out the Catholics...who were hated directly and pretty uniformly during the colonial years, and underwent low- and mid-level terrorism afterwards. Even today, anti-Catholicism is one of the last "respectable" prejudices.

[Alamoman]

I know plenty - many such "fundamentalistically" oriented right here on this site who turn a blind eye to any science that interferes with their dogma.
Could be, but that doesn't really back up the generalization "so many.." So many on this site? Possibly. I don't really know. My experiece has been different.

[Alamoman]

Is San Antonio close to Houston? That could be it. LOTS of science in Houston.... "Houston, we have a problem."
As the other person pointed out, about 200 miles...

BTW, Houston does have a big problem...................traffic..! :)

[Greyclouds]

Don't leave out the Catholics...who were hated directly and pretty uniformly during the colonial years, and underwent low- and mid-level terrorism afterwards. Even today, anti-Catholicism is one of the last "respectable" prejudices.

Many people forget that political cartoons prior to JFK's election to executive office all depicted the Nativist fear of the pope controlling the US executive branch if JFK were to win.

[Thank you Troops]

Do you reject evolution and all its works?

Oh no, I believe in evolution. That is how we get so many different species of birds, bears, butterflies, dogs, cats, etc.... They evolved from the original barmins that they were created in.

[Thank you Troops]

Bottom line is that we all hold our trust. Non-believers hold fast to the probabilities generated by man. I hold fast to the fact that my God has my soul for eternity and I will do everything in my power and his to serve him.



God bless you.

[Tim]

Oh no, I believe in evolution. That is how we get so many different species of birds, bears, butterflies, dogs, cats, etc.... They evolved from the original barmins that they were created in.

What are "barmins"? I'm not familiar with that term.

[Thank you Troops]

What are "barmins"? I'm not familiar with that term.

That's a new term in the creationist dictionary for "kind". The Bible teaches that God created different kinds of animals and they should reproduce according to their "kind". Which we see today. Some animals cannot reproduce with each other.

Creation scientists are working on identifying the differrent kinds of created animals related though common ancestry and they call that baraminology.

[Greyclouds]

What are "barmins"? I'm not familiar with that term.

He's talking about "biblical kinds," which is funny.

It means that out of one "goose kind" there was such an accelerated pace of Eukaryotic mutation and segregation as to produce hundreds of geese species such as these:

http://www.avianweb.com/geesespecies.html


Given the fact that the average time for a goose to reach sexual maturity in the wild is about 2 -3 years (lets be conservative and go with the 2 year estimate, NOT including egg gestation), and many genesis literalists believe that the world was created 6000 years ago, that gives the first goose type about 3000 generations to produce hundreds of completely different geese with different migration patterns, markings and digestive capabilities.

Oh, but there was a genetic bottleneck that's written in the bible as well! Noah! So that reduces the number of generations for the Goose kind to produce such variety down to 2000 generations.