MichaelH
Inactive
That is not saying a whole lot coming from you though.
Can I Be A Scientist And A Christian?
- Thread starter daily devotion
- Start date
That is not saying a whole lot coming from you though.
Huntingteckel
Inactive
And as always, some people are resorting to insults. 
Accusing me of making false assumptions does not explain 194 000 missing years of God's interaction with intelligent man.
Evolving intelligence makes the cross a joke. Meditate on it a while.
Survival of the fittest is math? Is natural selection good or evil? Our good God chose to make things by survival of the fittest? Christianity does not teach an evil God. If evil can't be traced to us or the fallen angels, it does not exist...unless you really see being eaten alive as good / God's way of creating.
C'mon, have you never read my many posts praising Catholic teaching? You have no right to accuse me of that.
Pay attention to the claims made by evolutionists and you will find theistic evolution is made a mockery. Why is there no theistic evolution science / claims accepted as fact by evolutionists? Atheists are allowed to run rampant on false claims but not TE's.
MichaelH
Inactive
And as always, some people are resorting to insults.
I would not let it bother you, there are certain folks here I pick on because they put down and publicly degrade God's ministers. They can dish it out, but they sure get their panties in a bunch when it comes back at them. Funny actually.
Huntingteckel
Inactive
Just because we don't have proof that God communicated with early humans doesn't mean it didn't happen. You expect to have a 15000 year old scroll to still be around?
I still don't understand how evolution makes the Cross a joke. Perhaps people didn't evolve and everything else did? After all, God said we were made special.
I don't understand how God letting nature take it's course is evil. I mean, there are plenty of extinct animals that went extinct because of other animals. Is that not true?
Who cares what they think of theistic evolution? Atheists don't like Christianity at all so why would they agree with anything involving our God?
1. Maybe it's lost to history or humans didn't have written language or something. I mean, honestly it's amazing that the Old Testament even made it based on the age. Maybe God came down directly and spoke with them? Who knows. I honestly can't remember how old evolutionists think humanity is anyway.
2. When God breathed life/spirit into him and he became made in the image of God.
3. I'm of the opinion that animals did die before the fall. For whatever reason I can't imagine that carnivores were eating grass before Adam sinned. Their bodies are designed to be meat eaters, not veggie eaters. Besides, their mouths are not even designed to be able to eat large amounts of grass/plants easily.
I always like your posts, KingJ, even if I don't agree.
1. Just Wiki it and you will see they found our intelligent fore fathers 200k bc in Ethiopia and 30k somewhere else.
We need to use lateral thought off scripture. God had one plan for mankind, Jesus. It all started with His selection of Abraham / a chosen race, the Jews. Now, Abraham was 2000 bc or so....so it took God 196 000 years before He decided to get involved with mankind's salvation?? The missing scripture is a very big issue. Intelligent man can only be 4000 to 5500 bc, according to scripture, not older. Every / all of scripture falls on its face with the simplest of lateral thought.
2. So, God looked at evolving monkeys and then decided to breathe His spirit in them? Fine. But does having a spirit make us accountable for sin / worthy of hell or does intelligence? Do babies and mentally handicapped go to heaven or hell?
3. We just need to look at ourselves to know that we were designed for life after a 'fall'. We have muscles that can toil the land. We have brains that can invent medicine. But in the garden of Eden, God's overwhelming presence sanctified us and we need do no work. The question becomes, do you see anything dying / suffering / being eaten alive in God's full presence? Adam and Eve hid from God for a reason....
Evolving intelligence makes the cross a joke. My statement of Adam's father is a tidbit of that. Ever hear an evolutionist exclude us from evolution? This is the issue TE's are having. We are not excluded / isolated.
After the fall = Adam / our sin to blame, not God.
We can't be naive. When claims do not bat for TE, TE's lose their faith.
Huntingteckel
Inactive
1. I would assume that God would want the Crucifixion recorded, so it makes sense that He would wait for humans to be able to write in a language that could be understood many years later.
2. Chimps are intelligent enough to browse pictures on the computer, which is just as intelligent as a child. Intelligence alone I don't think makes a being capable of "sin." Only humans can sin. I've heard of the "age of accountability" but I'm not sure where that's taken from biblically. I believe that children and the mentally handicapped go to heaven regardless anyway. I believe that God takes intelligence into account with humans. If someone never develops past a four year old's mentality then I don't see how they could be held accountable for not accepting a story they don't understand the impact of that is supposed to save them from their "sins" when they can't understand what sins are.
3. Sure. God is everywhere all the time and has no problem letting bad things happen.
I'll admit that the only thing that messes me up with the old earth view, where humans have been around for a long time, is the genealogy in the Bible. I suppose there could have been human type beings before Adam that God didn't breathe into.
Who cares? I don't really understand the point you're trying to make. So what if we were monkeys at some point. That doesn't effect anything in my mind.
Animals could have easily died before the fall. I don't see any reason why they couldn't. I don't believe that Adam's sin made animals start eating each other. That doesn't make any sense to me.
How is others being weak in their faith evolutionists fault? The same could be said about anything. If a pastor *cough* AndyStanley*cough* say's that the New Testament wasn't around until four hundred years after Jesus' death and a seed of doubt is planted, does it matter if he was wrong? Evolutionists could be wrong. If a TE loses faith then it's because his faith wasn't strong enough.
Yeah, it is what we do that gets ourselves in trouble, there is no one to blame except yourself.
Huntingteckel
Inactive
I don't think I said that it's God's fault that we sin... If I did then that is no where near what I meant.
I think animals were made to be immortal before the fall of man, and ate greens. This is what I hypothesized is to be true because God love all his creation (including his animals). It is the sin of man that causes death. Ever since Adam and Eve sinned, the animals stopped being immortal.
Huntingteckel
Inactive
Ah, well I don't believe animals were ever immortal. Animals killing each other isn't a sin so it isn't evil.
I agree with you ..
All I'm saying is that those who HIDE BEHIND FAUX SCIENCE have a tendency to ignore scientific METHODOLOGY because they feel it is against theories they cannot prove 150 years later .. REAL scientist do NOT claim facts which are only theory because they feel it will give them a FAUX vantage point with something that was never meant to be a science book.
The second option is called "GODS WORD" .. This view is held by many Christians, who understand the difference between a parable and a literal reading within the Bible (which the OT has no parables only miracles) of to explain the general precipitating events of creation .. Proponents of GODS WORD maintain that evolution is a poor interpretation of data based on a desire to exclude God .. and an enemy of scientific methodology .. It may surprise you to learn that large numbers of Americans affirm this view. In the Gallup Poll mentioned above, 46 percent of Americans said they believed that God created human beings, fully-formed, not evolved, less than 10 thousand years ago.
Because GODS WORD presents no problems it has a large following .. First, evolution has scientific problems .. It denies virtually every branch of modern science including physics, chemistry, cosmology, geology, anthropology, genetics and biology .. From a scientific perspective, evolution is hopelessly flawed (HENCE THE OLDEST THEORY NOT TO BE PROVEN) .. Not only does evolution have scientific problems, but it also has biblical problems .. Contrary to what this view teaches, evolution is not based on science but faith in no God .. The book of Genesis was written to give us a general explanation of creation .. In fact, Genesis has two creation accounts, one in Genesis Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 .. The two accounts (chapter 1 a totally different writing style and most likely older then rest of the Torah) do agree with each other and only with a lack of reading skills can they be thought to be at odds ..
For example, in both the first and second account man is created last .. in the second account (which begins with 2:4) it makes it very clear in verse 4&5 it is starting from DAY 3 .. So what's the deal??? .. then verse 7 skips forward to DAY 6 .. I reiterate So what's the deal, if they cant follow a simple chronology with a hole in it HOW do they think they could possibly follow an evolutionary chain with numerous holes ??? .. The deal is that they care little about science and even less about theology .. Beyond the obvious scientific and biblical problems with evolution, its biggest flaw is that it forces people to make an either/or choice between fact or fiction of God's Word, a totally unnecessary choice ..
Because GODS WORD presents no problems it has a large following .. First, evolution has scientific problems .. It denies virtually every branch of modern science including physics, chemistry, cosmology, geology, anthropology, genetics and biology .. From a scientific perspective, evolution is hopelessly flawed (HENCE THE OLDEST THEORY NOT TO BE PROVEN) .. Not only does evolution have scientific problems, but it also has biblical problems .. Contrary to what this view teaches, evolution is not based on science but faith in no God .. The book of Genesis was written to give us a general explanation of creation .. In fact, Genesis has two creation accounts, one in Genesis Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 .. The two accounts (chapter 1 a totally different writing style and most likely older then rest of the Torah) do agree with each other and only with a lack of reading skills can they be thought to be at odds ..
For example, in both the first and second account man is created last .. in the second account (which begins with 2:4) it makes it very clear in verse 4&5 it is starting from DAY 3 .. So what's the deal??? .. then verse 7 skips forward to DAY 6 .. I reiterate So what's the deal, if they cant follow a simple chronology with a hole in it HOW do they think they could possibly follow an evolutionary chain with numerous holes ??? .. The deal is that they care little about science and even less about theology .. Beyond the obvious scientific and biblical problems with evolution, its biggest flaw is that it forces people to make an either/or choice between fact or fiction of God's Word, a totally unnecessary choice ..
I'm not normally much of a science guy, but I went to see Hugh Ross speak a few weeks ago.
Ross is a Christian astrophysicist who runs a ministry called "Reasons to Believe" http://www.reasons.org/
He was very interesting to listen to, because his expertise focuses on astrophysics more than life science, so he gave some perspectives I've never heard before, particularly about modern space-time theories.
People interested in science and Christianity would probably find some things to read on his website.
Ross is a Christian astrophysicist who runs a ministry called "Reasons to Believe" http://www.reasons.org/
He was very interesting to listen to, because his expertise focuses on astrophysics more than life science, so he gave some perspectives I've never heard before, particularly about modern space-time theories.
People interested in science and Christianity would probably find some things to read on his website.
they can't even figure out if Mars' surface gravity is suitable to sustain man, or if a lack of calcification and muscle loss would occur .. lol
that makes me also think of Jupiter .. they KNOW it is made of gas and have no clue if it even has a core, yet they call it a planet .. lol
I think Christians have a BIG edge on the non-believers in scientific honesty ..
A comment on the nature of proof:
When I started out in university, I was studying Biology, but I felt it wasn't really attempting to answer a lot of the sorts of questions I was asking. When I spoke to one of my profs about it, he recommended that if those were the sorts of questions I was asking, I should be studying philosophy, not science.
For me, that turned about to be good advice (although he meant it sarcastically)
Here's something that stuck with me from a course I took on the philosophy of science:
The nature of science is that it cannot prove anything, only disprove.
If you run an experiment on a hypothesis once, you have proved that it worked "that time," but to prove the hypothesis, you would have to run the experiment an infinite amount of times (this is the difference between proof and perceived evidence). But to prove the hypothesis wrong, it only has to be shown to be wrong once (then the hypothesis should be modified based on what you learned through the experiment's result).
So when we talk about "proof" in science, you can add perceived evidence to a theory, but it is impossible to "prove" any theory at all, only disprove it.
Generally, the word "proof" in science is used when it's generally deemed that there have been enough failed attempts to disprove a theory that it seems unlikely it will be disproved. But the burden of proof in philosophy is much higher
I'm just sharing that because I find it personally helpful to keep in mind when discussing science:
You can't prove a theory (but evidence, real or perceived, can make a theory seem likely)
But you can disprove a theory
When I started out in university, I was studying Biology, but I felt it wasn't really attempting to answer a lot of the sorts of questions I was asking. When I spoke to one of my profs about it, he recommended that if those were the sorts of questions I was asking, I should be studying philosophy, not science.
For me, that turned about to be good advice (although he meant it sarcastically
)Here's something that stuck with me from a course I took on the philosophy of science:
The nature of science is that it cannot prove anything, only disprove.
If you run an experiment on a hypothesis once, you have proved that it worked "that time," but to prove the hypothesis, you would have to run the experiment an infinite amount of times (this is the difference between proof and perceived evidence). But to prove the hypothesis wrong, it only has to be shown to be wrong once (then the hypothesis should be modified based on what you learned through the experiment's result).
So when we talk about "proof" in science, you can add perceived evidence to a theory, but it is impossible to "prove" any theory at all, only disprove it.
Generally, the word "proof" in science is used when it's generally deemed that there have been enough failed attempts to disprove a theory that it seems unlikely it will be disproved. But the burden of proof in philosophy is much higher
I'm just sharing that because I find it personally helpful to keep in mind when discussing science:
You can't prove a theory (but evidence, real or perceived, can make a theory seem likely)
But you can disprove a theory
Last edited:
Here's an interesting quote for the OP from Kenneth Richard Samples (Does Science Its Pedestal?) http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo26-science-faith/does-science-deserve-its-pedestal.php
"Christians should recognize that it is a fundamental mistake either to deify or to defy science, for rooted deeply in Christian intellectual history is the "two-books" approach to understanding truth and revelation: the metaphorical book of nature (general revelation) and the literal book of the Bible (special revelation). Both of these revelatory books come from God's own hand. When both are properly understood and interpreted, they will—and, in fact, must—agree."
"Christians should recognize that it is a fundamental mistake either to deify or to defy science, for rooted deeply in Christian intellectual history is the "two-books" approach to understanding truth and revelation: the metaphorical book of nature (general revelation) and the literal book of the Bible (special revelation). Both of these revelatory books come from God's own hand. When both are properly understood and interpreted, they will—and, in fact, must—agree."
what if Jupiter ignites and fulfills Rev 16:8,9 as a smaller more distant 2nd sun ???
oh I know JC fault .. lol
even when they see Jesus come in the sky .. they STILL fight against God ..
so why be surprised they fight against GODS WORD with their NON-SCIENTIFIC evolution ???
Rev 19:19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies assembled to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army.
oh I know JC fault .. lol
even when they see Jesus come in the sky .. they STILL fight against God ..
so why be surprised they fight against GODS WORD with their NON-SCIENTIFIC evolution ???
Rev 19:19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies assembled to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army.
A comment on the nature of proof:
When I started out in university, I was studying Biology, but I felt it wasn't really attempting to answer a lot of the sorts of questions I was asking. When I spoke to one of my profs about it, he recommended that if those were the sorts of questions I was asking, I should be studying philosophy, not science.
For me, that turned about to be good advice (although he meant it sarcastically
Here's something that stuck with me from a course I took on the philosophy of science:
The nature of science is that it cannot prove anything, only disprove.
If you run an experiment on a hypothesis once, you have proved that it worked "that time," but to prove the hypothesis, you would have to run the experiment an infinite amount of times (this is the difference between proof and perceived evidence). But to prove the hypothesis wrong, it only has to be shown to be wrong once (then the hypothesis should be modified based on what you learned through the experiment's result).
So when we talk about "proof" in science, you can add perceived evidence to a theory, but it is impossible to "prove" any theory at all, only disprove it.
Generally, the word "proof" in science is used when it's generally deemed that there have been enough failed attempts to disprove a theory that it seems unlikely it will be disproved. But the burden of proof in philosophy is much higher
I'm just sharing that because I find it personally helpful to keep in mind when discussing science:
You can't prove a theory (but evidence, real or perceived, can make a theory seem likely)
But you can disprove a theory
exactly .. scientific methodology only allows a perceived plausibility ..