Bible Believing Christians and science

[BobRyan]

Sometimes the atheist darwinists will charge that Christians are opposed to "Science".

But notice this only happens in the realm of pseudoscience - not "actual" science.

Nobody asks "if Christians are troubled by sodium chloride as a precipitant".

Nobody asks if "Christianity is stressed by the acceleration due to gravity".

Nobody "questions Christianity" when it comes to dendrology, virology, oncology, coordinate triangulation, physiology, cell biology, pythagorem theorem, Krebs cycle, photosynthesis, magnetic field fluctuation, the focal point of a lense.. ".

In other words the hard sciences never pose a problem and in fact Christians are often the "founders" of those sciences.

But in the modern world - Christians seem to have a hard time accepting pseudoscience as though it were fact (the way atheist darwinians insist that it be done). When the atheist darwinians complain that Christians do not swallow the doctrinal coolaide darwinists dish out the atheist darwinists "revise" the debate so that it is now "Christians against actual science".

I bet they even get some Christians so befuddled as to believe that line of baloney.

What do "you" think?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I think too much book learning will fill men's hearts with pride, including scientists.

And we know that pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.

Those that scientifically try to explain away (or prove) that which is given us through God's Holy Word, are contrary to the gospel.

For we walk by faith, not by sight.

 

[Petrel]

I think most Christians are sensible enough not to have a blind hatred of science (although some do) but there are others who accept science until the evidence begins to contradict their preconceived notions, whereupon they throw a fit and start calling it pseudoscience.

And I might be disturbed by the precipitation of sodium chloride if it were precipitating from a nonsaturated aqueous solution. Where water is concerned sodium chloride is hardly ever a precipitate because its solubility is so high.

It precipitates quite well from many organic solvents.

 

[BobRyan]

Question for Bible believing Christians.

What is your view of "exegesis"? Do you embrace it? If so what rules do you use to make sure you stay inside the realm of "letting the text speak for itself rather than inserting man's ideas INTO it"??

Now for the application to this subject area --

What about those Christians who seek to "limit the Bible" by reading it through a lense, which is in fact a pseudoscience "filter" -- (lets call that filter "atheist darwinism" for the sake of this question).

Can there be a "marriage" between the objective methods of actual exegesis and subjective doctrines (wishful thinking) of a pseudoscience like the atheist's darwinism?


In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Petrel:

It (salt) precipitates quite well from many organic solvents. [/QB]

I know of no Christians who "stress over that" and I know of no atheist darwinists that say that you can not be a Christian and still accept that salt can be a precipitant.

The bottom line is - Christians are never challenged by Atheist darwinists outside of the pseudoscience realm of darwinist evolutionism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The other thing for Bible believing Christians to consider on this board is the "degree of objectivity" that you should not expect from someone who believes the atheist darwinist model for evolutionism.

On the "Lessons Learned" thread that deals with the METHODS used by Marshal to create the fraudulent horse fossil "arrangement" as if it were discovered sequences in the fossil record showing smooth orthogenic transitions - we see Atheist Darwinists decrying that fraud - lamenting it, and stating that the sequence it portrays "Never happened in nature".

Here is an "obvious" and unique area where BOTH Darwinist evolutionists (atheists in the case of the quotes provided there) and Bible believing Christians can find agreement. (A rare case on this area of the message board).

So in that "more than ideal case" the fact that we find so called Christian evolutionists here "denying that there is air" in their efforts to fall all over their own swords denying what even atheist darwinists confess to regarding the discredited, debunked fraudulent fossil "arrangement" of Marshall - how then can you "ever" hope for a MORE objective "evaluation" of ANY science fact in dispute - by the evolutionists that inhabit this section of the board?

What BETTER hope for common ground have you ever found with them than this clear area where atheist darwinists are aGREEING with Bible believing Christians on the debunked horse series?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[npc]

Since it is so obvious that all evolutionists are atheists, there is nothing to debate here. I hope that no evolutionists will attempt to disprove BobRyan; it is a waste of time.

 

[Deacon]

"Every day Galileo converts some of the heretics who did not believe him, although there are still a few who, in order to escape knowing the truth about the stars around Jupiter, do not even want to look at them."

Cosmo Sassetti
7 May 1611

 

[BobRyan]

As much as the evolutionists here love to obfuscate, misdirect and gloss over details the "point remains" as stated and as "unchallenged" with anything substantive so far.

#1. There are NO examples of challenges to Christians outside of the pseudoscience context doctrines in atheist darwinism. I gave specific examples of Christians never being challenged in areas of "actual science". So far "no challenges" to that either.

#2. I never said that all evolutionists are atheists. I simply observe the "obvious" about the doctrines of atheist darwinism and the "tactics" of those who follow it like drones follow a queen bee.

So far you do not challenge these points with an "actual argument".

how "instructive".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by npc:
Since it is so obvious that all evolutionists are atheists, there is nothing to debate here. I hope that no evolutionists will attempt to disprove BobRyan; it is a waste of time.

It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you are actually trying to persuade BobRyan about the truth compared to the strange things he types, then yes, it is a waste of time. But if you merely hope for lurkers to see the intellectual bankruptcy that is hyperliteral creationism, then a few lines of sense that provoke reams of nonsense from him are perhaps worthwhile after all.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
There are NO examples of challenges to Christians outside of the pseudoscience context doctrines in atheist darwinism. I gave specific examples of Christians never being challenged in areas of "actual science". So far "no challenges" to that either.

Some christians such as Martin Luther and other reformers and catholics as well saw challenge to Christianity in the upstart notions of Copernicus and Gallileo. They had the temerity to assert, contrary to scripture, that the sun moving around the earth is not literally the cause of day and night, instead, it is the rotation of the earth.

Their wrong-headed faith based opposition to the findings of science is historically documented.

Your decision to accept the findings of science against the literal interpretation of scripture with regards to the rotation of the earth is, of course, based on one thing only.

You know you've got to do it.

If there was the slightest chance, in your mind, that the earth doesn't really rotate, you would join Luther and the rest and oppose the modern science of astronomy.

You give in because the science has convinced you.

You then blame others for doing the same thing in the area of biology.

In this way you fulfill the scripture:

Matt 23:1-4
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.
4 "They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.
NASU

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
I know of no Christians who "stress over that" and I know of no atheist darwinists that say that you can not be a Christian and still accept that salt can be a precipitant.

The point: ---> .


Your head: --> O

Returning to the dead horse you are beating, once again, we are not presenting examples where science counters Christianity because there are none. These supposed conflicts show up only when science conflicts with Christians' erroneous presuppositions about how the world works and how the Bible should be interpreted.

Believe me, if there were a verse that could be even remotely misinterpreted as saying sodium chloride is soluble in hexane, we'd have someone on here declaiming against it.

 

[npc]

But if you merely hope for lurkers to see the intellectual bankruptcy that is hyperliteral creationism

I think BobRyan does an adequate job of that on his own.

 

[BobRyan]

I love it - "hyperliteral gospelism" as in "really believe the Gospel is true".

"hyperliteral bible-ism" as in "really believe that Bible is true". As in "not reading the bible through the lense of atheist darwinism".

Never a lack of humor when it comes to evolutionists and the Bible!

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
There are NO examples of challenges to Christians outside of the pseudoscience context doctrines in atheist darwinism. I gave specific examples of Christians never being challenged in areas of "actual science". So far "no challenges" to that either.

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

Some christians such as Martin Luther and other reformers and catholics as well saw challenge to Christianity in the upstart notions of Copernicus and Gallileo. They had the temerity to assert, contrary to scripture, that the sun moving around the earth is not literally the cause of day and night, instead, it is the rotation of the earth.

Einstien had the "temerity" to state that motion is relative to the reference plane of the observer. Oh wait - He must be a "hyper-literalist" that dirty rotten Einstein!!

The attempt to "twist every fact" into a defense for atheist darwinism - is the ploy of evolutionists - never of Christians.

I am having a discussion with an admitted atheist darwinist on another thread. He uses the same "tactics". Appealing to the rotation of earth as proof that God's Word is wrong JUST as you assert that it is "contrary to scripture".

In defense of the truth I never argue that one must "interpret scripture through the LENSE of atheist darwinism" to accept the fact that the earth rotates.

Your wrong-headed logic has left you without science and without the Bible as you embrace the doctrines of the psuedoscience religion we know today as atheist darwinism.

In seeking to marry atheist darwinism to science and to the Bible - you only end up with atheist darwinism.

In seeking to accept "truth" Bible believing Christians end up with science (many of the sciences FOUNDED by Christians) AND the Bible!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Sometimes the atheist darwinists will charge that Christians are opposed to "Science".

But notice this only happens in the realm of pseudoscience - not "actual" science.

Nobody asks "if Christians are troubled by sodium chloride as a precipitant".

Nobody asks if "Christianity is stressed by the acceleration due to gravity".

Nobody "questions Christianity" when it comes to dendrology, virology, oncology, coordinate triangulation, physiology, cell biology, pythagorem theorem, Krebs cycle, photosynthesis, magnetic field fluctuation, the focal point of a lense.. ".

In other words the hard sciences never pose a problem and in fact Christians are often the "founders" of those sciences.

Notice the fact that the points in the OP are "so glossed over in each evolutionist post" that responses to those posts are often in the form of simply pointing out the "inconvenient details" first noted in the op??!!!

How "instructive" brethren.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

Some christians such as Martin Luther and other reformers and catholics as well saw challenge to Christianity in the upstart notions of Copernicus and Gallileo. They had the temerity to assert, contrary to scripture, that the sun moving around the earth is not literally the cause of day and night, instead, it is the rotation of the earth.

Einstien had the "temerity" to state that motion is relative to the reference plane of the observer. Oh wait - He must be a "hyper-literalist" that dirty rotten Einstein!!
</font>[/QUOTE]Well, Einstein accepted an age of the universe at billions of years in his cosmology. He understood that while it is possible to regard the earth as still and the universe as rotating, to do so requires an extreme modification of the universe such that no one would feel comfortable viewing the universe in that light - so that the notion of the universe being still and the earth instead rotating is fundamentally a simpler notion.

The attempt to "twist every fact" into a defense for atheist darwinism - is the ploy of evolutionists - never of Christians.

Hey, its not our fault the facts agree with all of science including astronomoy, geology, and biology. Indeed, the sciences are crafted to agree with the facts as much as possible. On the other hand, refusing to face facts is the common ploy of the hyper-literal creationist such as yourself.

I am having a discussion with an admitted atheist darwinist on another thread. He uses the same "tactics". Appealing to the rotation of earth as proof that God's Word is wrong JUST as you assert that it is "contrary to scripture".

You misquote me again - a skill you have mastered without any shame, to your everlasting discredit - when you say I assert it is "contrary to scripture". I only assert it is contrary to your interpretation.

In defense of the truth I never argue that one must "interpret scripture through the LENSE of atheist darwinism" to accept the fact that the earth rotates.

Who would ever associate the earth's rotation with Darwin? I really have to marvel at your thought processes.

On the other hand, by what twisted logic do you agree to accept the findings of science and reject the literal teachings of scripture regarding the rotation of the earth, while maintaining we cannot accept the findings of science and reject the literal teachings of scripture regarding the common descent of all life?

Your wrong-headed logic has left you without science and without the Bible as you embrace the doctrines of the psuedoscience religion we know today as atheist darwinism.

There you go again, falsely bearing witness against Darwinism that it is atheistic. Have you no shame?

In seeking to accept "truth" Bible believing Christians end up with science (many of the sciences FOUNDED by Christians) AND the Bible!!

Yes, except for those cases where they are still in the rejection stage for some established truths, and thus causing harm to the Christ they are claiming to serve.

 

[The Galatian]

Rob, if you loved God with half the passion with which you hate science, you'd be much better off.