If you were going into the Science Field, and Christian what would you want to know?

[kenisyes]

I am actually really interested how you got this from the Bible -

There are several examples, such as in Job 40:15 "consider Behemoth". The first step of the scientific method is to observe nature. But then after that, God expects Job to listen to God's point of view. The scientific method as used today, assumes we are to make something up.

Many people believe the scientific method was invented to stand against the papal infallibility of the Catholic church, and cite the example of the persecution of Galilleo and Copernicus. They are correct to point out that chemistry is more Godly than alchemy, and astronomy moreso than astrology, for example. At this time in history, people were finally starting to allow themselves to think their own point of view, and depart from the dogmatism of the pope, as this is when hundreds of new protestant denominations were being formed. This is why science replaced "listen to God" with "make up your own theory". And this is how "experimentally confirmed hypothesis (by their fruits you will know them)" got confused in many people's minds with "truth". Many people actually needed something to replace their dependence on infallibility, and many scientists were willing to compromise to fill the new role.

 

[thecreationtutor]

hmm I know the clear desire for people to get out from under the Papacy - Like I had stated earlier - the forward to Galileo's work done by a protestant priest directs towards the Scientific method, in formal logic I put it in an earlier post - is a logical fallacy, but the Scientific Method works so well. As Aristotle and Popper would put it, that we actively look for patterns, and that they might not really even be there, but because we are looking - we see them; almost a make your own reality.

Thomas Aquinas - thomism: and his idea that nature should be almost treated as a second book to the bible, where philosophers took that to the extreme as nature is all that exists and time. Thomism is evidence based arguments, and I don't believe in thomism, because people are born with an incorrect worldview.

I don't think we can take or draw out the scientific method by scripture however, and not keep it in a Biblical Worldview

 

[FIRE_of_ELIJAH]

First off , im not really good at science. But If I were having an opportunity to go with this field, I would study more about the fossils. Maybe, I can find out prehistoric animals or animals that existed in a past geological age other than dinosaurs.This is very essential as christian because science and the Bible are in harmony during the creation.

 

[4enlightment]

What are some of the things that you would want to know as you went into the Science field, as a Christian - Having spent the last 9 years in it, I have some thoughts, but what about you?

It's impossible for one person to go in a area that you need to know more than just one. Only thing that I believe that the Holy Spirit will guide you to the things that you need to know and then he'll bring it up to you when you need a certain peice for the puzzle. Science can lure anyone away from God, by having them to focus on the physical nature of things. In that area you have to put God words first, by making sure that your studies doesn't be inconsistent with the scriptures. If the Bible says that the earth is 6,500 yearsold, then you have to search the for the answer. But a person shouldn't change the scriptures to fit in the logic of science.

 

[Mo0448]

It's impossible for one person to go in a area that you need to know more than just one. Only thing that I believe that the Holy Spirit will guide you to the things that you need to know and then he'll bring it up to you when you need a certain peice for the puzzle. Science can lure anyone away from God, by having them to focus on the physical nature of things. In that area you have to put God words first, by making sure that your studies doesn't be inconsistent with the scriptures. If the Bible says that the earth is 6,500 yearsold, then you have to search the for the answer. But a person shouldn't change the scriptures to fit in the logic of science.

While I agree with what you are saying enlightment the one statement that can raise a question mark on the thought of a 'literal day' is that scriptures say in 2 Peter 3: 3-9

3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.


A day for the Lord is like a thousand years and a thousand years to the Lord like a day. We clearly see here that God is not tied down by the concept of time. My thought is could and can God create all things in 6 days? Sure God can there is nothing God can't do! Could these days not have been literal days, since God does not create 'day' and 'night' to measure "days" until I believe the 3rd day? The answer is I don't know. God can do anything and God is obviously not tied down by time as we are. God was, God is, and God is to come. That's what I find important.

 

[4enlightment]

While I agree with what you are saying enlightment the one statement that can raise a question mark on the thought of a 'literal day' is that scriptures say in 2 Peter 3: 3-9

3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.


A day for the Lord is like a thousand years and a thousand years to the Lord like a day. We clearly see here that God is not tied down by the concept of time. My thought is could and can God create all things in 6 days? Sure God can there is nothing God can't do! Could these days not have been literal days, since God does not create 'day' and 'night' to measure "days" until I believe the 3rd day? The answer is I don't know. God can do anything and God is obviously not tied down by time as we are. God was, God is, and God is to come. That's what I find important.

Yes..., But God had rest on the seventh day, but He it didn't said that He was finish, it only said that He was finished with the foundation and its habitants; only Jesus had said it when He had finished completing the penalties of the laws so that it will be the end of the laws and by doing this it has shown us what we must do in order for us to be born.
We are in the seventh day and which it is the Sabbath.

Matthew 12:11He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?

 

[Bowman]

I don't deny the scientific record,

If you are a YEC, you do...

I deny the humanistic worldview that man has, in order to deny the Gospel, The Bible, or Creation

.

No disagreement here...

Do you know what eisegesis vs exegesis is?

I've been performing scriptural exegesis before you were born.

That a plain reading of scripture is a young creation, rather than taking meanings of word and conforming them to fit in your definition and really do harm to the text.

A plain reading of what, English?

The original languages tell us a story which matches modern science.

That if you take it exegetically you draw out the importance of creation, or do you deny the book of Romans and what Jesus actually says. If you don't hold that the bible is God's word, that's fine, we make our choices and live by the consequences of them.

Alas, we put our tents one day at a time towards eternity

Even Jesus said that a day is twelve hrs long....How does this fit with your 24 hr creation day?

 

[Bowman]

I wrote a paper in my Master's on the Myth of the Scientific Method, and this was the beginning of seeing Science as a human endeavor, where people are full of bias, and agenda's that lead them to their conclusions - Paradigms of Science, that tower over any new theory, which lead me to Presuppositional or Worldview apologetics; That the Bible as a whole is a worldview, that cannot really be held unless we are born again and with the renewing of our minds Romans 12:2, and indwelt with the Holy Spirit

Gen 1 contains the scientific method, as already shown to you....care to comment directly?

I wonder if Christians knew how much secular scientists mock them when they hold to evolution, or conform exactly to what they want, i have a few quotes
•“were going to dupe all of these bishops and clergy, if we handle this strategy right, we will pull them right along” - Charles Lisle

An old Earth does not imply human evolution anymore than the belief in a young earth.

"Each ('day-age' or 'gap-theory'). . . involves critical compromises with the plainest, most literal reading of the Bible to force Scripture into concordance with scientific evidence regarding the age of the earth." [4] Dr. Tom McIver

Example, please...

I wish I could find Huxley's lambaste of Christians who so readily deny the plain reading of Genesis also deny the plain promises in them based on an exegetical study of the book of Genesis.

I wish you could, too...

Correct worldviews lead to correct thinking
Presuppositions make up a worldview

Uniformity in Nature
Absolute Morality
Reliability of Senses
Laws of Logic
Reliability of Memory

All these only come from a Biblical Worldview

Jesus is the ultimate example of what it looks like to live out the Biblical Worldview

Agreed...

 

[Bowman]

Parts of the scientific method were indeed gleaned from the Bible. Those parts were diluted with other ideas. It's the other ideas that mess it up.

Care to detail for us what parts came from the Holy Bible...thanks...

 

[Bowman]

There are several examples, such as in Job 40:15 "consider Behemoth". The first step of the scientific method is to observe nature. But then after that, God expects Job to listen to God's point of view. The scientific method as used today, assumes we are to make something up.

Many people believe the scientific method was invented to stand against the papal infallibility of the Catholic church, and cite the example of the persecution of Galilleo and Copernicus. They are correct to point out that chemistry is more Godly than alchemy, and astronomy moreso than astrology, for example. At this time in history, people were finally starting to allow themselves to think their own point of view, and depart from the dogmatism of the pope, as this is when hundreds of new protestant denominations were being formed. This is why science replaced "listen to God" with "make up your own theory". And this is how "experimentally confirmed hypothesis (by their fruits you will know them)" got confused in many people's minds with "truth". Many people actually needed something to replace their dependence on infallibility, and many scientists were willing to compromise to fill the new role.

No, brother...

The scientific method is used as a tool for prediction.

The best methods have the best predictive power.

 

[kenisyes]

Care to detail for us what parts came from the Holy Bible...thanks...

I guess I did kind of skim over it. From the last page, there are four steps to the scientific method:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Step 1 is in Job 40:15 and other passages, where we are told to observe nature and learn from it. Step 4 is an application of "by their fruits you will know them. (Matt. 7:16, etc.) The other two steps are antithetical to the Scriptures, as step 2, God would rather we consult Him for explanations, as Job did in the passage I quoted, and step 3 assumes that faith cannot change things while they are being studied, a denial of such Scriptures as Matt. 17:20.

 

[kenisyes]

No, brother...

The scientific method is used as a tool for prediction.

The best methods have the best predictive power.

See my comment just above this on step 2. Formulation of a hypothesis is making something up. A hypothesis by definition is a made up idea why something happens.

When we hypothesize that gravity is best modelled by a quadratic equation, we are on safer ground, than we are when we hypothesize that humans evolved from monkeys. After all, humans use gravity every day, but no human was there to watch anything try to evolve into humans. Just because the monkey assumption, made a century or so ago, has accurately predicted that our DNA (not analyzed then yet) would come close to that of monkeys, that does not prove that evolution is the reason for the similarity. Another option exists, namely, God liked what monkeys looked like, and decided to make us that way too. God having already invented DNA (when He made plants) copied the DNA that suited His purpose.

 

[Bowman]

I guess I did kind of skim over it. From the last page, there are four steps to the scientific method:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Step 1 is in Job 40:15 and other passages, where we are told to observe nature and learn from it. Step 4 is an application of "by their fruits you will know them. (Matt. 7:16, etc.) The other two steps are antithetical to the Scriptures, as step 2, God would rather we consult Him for explanations, as Job did in the passage I quoted, and step 3 assumes that faith cannot change things while they are being studied, a denial of such Scriptures as Matt. 17:20.

I would not use Job 40 as a good example of the scientific method.

Gen 1 satisfies all the criteria for the scientific method.

 

[crossnote]

This is what I actually like from Aristotle - philosophers like Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper - thanks kenisyes - the scientific Method is actually a logical fallacy!

But doesn't it keep another fallacious theory (i.e. evolution) at bay by requiring an empirical approach? (hehe)

 

[Bowman]

See my comment just above this on step 2. Formulation of a hypothesis is making something up. A hypothesis by definition is a made up idea why something happens.

A hypothesis, by definition, is derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature.

A hypothesis can then be tested and verified and a conclusion drawn.

When we hypothesize that gravity is best modelled by a quadratic equation, we are on safer ground, than we are when we hypothesize that humans evolved from monkeys. After all, humans use gravity every day, but no human was there to watch anything try to evolve into humans. Just because the monkey assumption, made a century or so ago, has accurately predicted that our DNA (not analyzed then yet) would come close to that of monkeys, that does not prove that evolution is the reason for the similarity. Another option exists, namely, God liked what monkeys looked like, and decided to make us that way too. God having already invented DNA (when He made plants) copied the DNA that suited His purpose.

The Holy Bible predicts that we did not evolve from apes...and this is what the scientific record shows us as well.

 

[crossnote]

Someone tried to make this connection - that if all matter is created upon vibration - sound is a vibration - God spoke the world into existence... I thought that was cool

Which brings up a question, which is more of a basic building block...sound or light? After all ...And God SAID "Let there be LIGHT''. So you seem to have the spoken Word and Light simultaneously.

 

[thecreationtutor]

Honestly doubt these statements altogether - because if the church was run by dogmaticism - there would be no one to actually really glean this, now I suppose principles might be there - but taking the SM out of a biblical authoritative context leads to the crap we see today

 

[thecreationtutor]

First off , im not really good at science. But If I were having an opportunity to go with this field, I would study more about the fossils. Maybe, I can find out prehistoric animals or animals that existed in a past geological age other than dinosaurs.This is very essential as christian because science and the Bible are in harmony during the creation.

the word prehistoric is a made up word actually! to designate towards evolution

 

[kenisyes]

I would not use Job 40 as a good example of the scientific method.

You asked for verses that would support the method being "gleaned" from the Bible, not for examples.

Gen 1 satisfies all the criteria for the scientific method.

Sorry, I don't see it. I can't see where God hypothesizes or checks by trial and error. He seems to know what He is doing, and just follows a plan He has made. Please give me a verse for each of the four steps from that chapter.

 

[kenisyes]

A hypothesis, by definition, is derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. A hypothesis can then be tested and verified and a conclusion drawn.

i don't see how this is different from guessing. It is guessing restricted to how nature works, based on available evidence.

The Holy Bible predicts that we did not evolve from apes...and this is what the scientific record shows us as well.

There are certainly a lot of scientists running around who disagree with you on what the scientific record shows.