Does Science go against faith?

[4enlightment]

um....

"This is what the LORD says: "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be?"

Isaiah 66:1

1 Kings 8:17“My father David had it in his heart to build a temple for the Name of the Lord, the God of Israel.

1 Kings 5:5I intend, therefore, to build a temple for the Name of the Lord my God, as the Lord told my father David, when he said, ‘Your son whom I will put on the throne in your place will build the temple for my Name.’


Haggai 1:2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: “These people say, ‘The time has not yet come to rebuild the Lord’s house.’”3 Then the word of the Lord came through the prophet Haggai: 4 “Is it a time for you yourselves to be living in your paneled houses, while this house remains a ruin?”
5 Now this is what the Lord Almighty says: “Give careful thought to your ways.

Mark 14:58
“We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’”

Scholars generally agree that Jesus died between 30-36 AD (The earth was around Four thousand year old or four and a half days.)
Chronology of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Three days or Three thousand years later it will be around the end of the seventh day.

 

[zone]

If the Earth is stationary, which I believe it is.........

http://christianchat.com/miscellaneous/55743-geocentrism.html < click

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

[…]IN THE DAY that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." The word "day" in this verse is the same #3117 word used in chapter one, but here it represents THE WHOLE PERIOD OF CREATION!! All the creation and all the six days are called the one singular "day."

The same applies in English. If I tell you “my grandfather built his house in a day”, that doesn’t mean that in my grandfather’s day, his house took a billion years to build. In English, as in Hebrew, the meaning of the word is determined by the context. In Genesis 1, it is abundantly clear that the word day means one 24 hour day (i.e. one evening, one morning). To say anything else is as dishonest as to distort the above sentence to say my grandfather built his house in a gazillion years, “in his day”.

Ever wondered how there was gold in the garden of eden? I have heard that it takes millions of years to get gold from volcanoes. Six literal days and there is gold in the garden or six stages long enuf to make gold?

Well, hear it from me that it doesn’t take millions of years to get gold. God can make it immediately, if He so chooses.

I'm an atheist. Clearly I don't treat the bible as an infallible record, particularly because of claims such as a young Earth.

I understand. And it’s backward Christians who love the acceptance of men rather than the truth, who accept the words of scientists over the words of God, who are partly to blame for this belief of yours.

The Earth is not stationary -- Galileo and Copernicus proved geocentrism was a failed theory centuries ago, and even many fundamentalists don't accept that everything in the universe rotates around the Earth (because it doesn't). The reason that other fundamentalists are okay with letting this one go is because it wouldn't prove anything.

I don’t think either Galileo or Copernicus proved the heliocentric theory. Didn’t Galileo just prove that Venus orbited the sun?

The idea that a stationary Earth would make the stars much closer is a non sequitar... they are completely unrelated ideas.

If the Earth were orbiting the sun, it would be on opposite sides of the sun in Winter and Summer. This huge distance (as the sun is large and far away from Earth in the heliocentric theory) would mean a change in where we observe the stars in the night sky. As there is no observable change in the location of the stars between Winter and Summer, heliocentrists conclude that the star is *so* far away, any change in angle is negligible (and therefore, it would take millions of years for this light to get to Earth). Geocentrists hold that there is no change in angle observed, because there is no change in angle in actuality, because the Earth isn’t moving (this makes the stars *much* closer than light years away).

As you noted, the Earth was made much sooner than the sun... so what exactly would mark the days? How long is a day in a universe without a sun? And if you believe in this literal interpretation of Genesis, how do you reconcile the idea that plants were created a day before the sun? We know from scientific research that our planet is warmed by the sun, and without it we'd all freeze to death in a matter of minutes. Plants require the sun for warmth as well, let alone food via photosynthesis. How could this order of creation make sense, especially if you believe that the plants had to wait a "day" for the sun to arrive?

God created the light, and separated the light from the darkness. And He called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. The sun and moon don’t define day and night (although they rule over them). The light is all that is necessary for day, and God created that in the beginning, on day 1. As for the plants (day 3), God had already created the light that plants need (plants don’t need sunlight, just light). I’m not sure I follow you about the planet being warmed by the sun. Can you prove we’d freeze without it?

 

[CoooCaw]

stay away from the science; you really are an embarrassment and you give our opponents ammunition

The same applies in English. If I tell you “my grandfather built his house in a day”, that doesn’t mean that in my grandfather’s day, his house took a billion years to build. In English, as in Hebrew, the meaning of the word is determined by the context. In Genesis 1, it is abundantly clear that the word day means one 24 hour day (i.e. one evening, one morning). To say anything else is as dishonest as to distort the above sentence to say my grandfather built his house in a gazillion years, “in his day”.

Well, hear it from me that it doesn’t take millions of years to get gold. God can make it immediately, if He so chooses.

I understand. And it’s backward Christians who love the acceptance of men rather than the truth, who accept the words of scientists over the words of God, who are partly to blame for this belief of yours.

I don’t think either Galileo or Copernicus proved the heliocentric theory. Didn’t Galileo just prove that Venus orbited the sun?

If the Earth were orbiting the sun, it would be on opposite sides of the sun in Winter and Summer. This huge distance (as the sun is large and far away from Earth in the heliocentric theory) would mean a change in where we observe the stars in the night sky. As there is no observable change in the location of the stars between Winter and Summer, heliocentrists conclude that the star is *so* far away, any change in angle is negligible (and therefore, it would take millions of years for this light to get to Earth). Geocentrists hold that there is no change in angle observed, because there is no change in angle in actuality, because the Earth isn’t moving (this makes the stars *much* closer than light years away).

God created the light, and separated the light from the darkness. And He called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. The sun and moon don’t define day and night (although they rule over them). The light is all that is necessary for day, and God created that in the beginning, on day 1. As for the plants (day 3), God had already created the light that plants need (plants don’t need sunlight, just light). I’m not sure I follow you about the planet being warmed by the sun. Can you prove we’d freeze without it?

 

[Sanashankar]

Gold was evidently ubiquitous before the Flood, not just in the GoE. See Genesis 2:12.
Also, gold is a seemingly abundant element, so much so that God paves streets with it.

Is that scriptural????? i dont see it anywhere in the bible. Gen 2: 12 is speaking abt Garden of Eden.

During the creation God did everything according to his laws, that is what we are following today. He did not just plant an apple tree or orange tree from nowhere.

Gn 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Let the "earth" bringforth....hebrew word meaning is

H1876 dasha daw-shaw'

to sprout.

Sprouted or it can mean ‘to bud.’ Now you know when something buds or sprouts out of the ground, it’s not full grown. When an acorn tree sprouts out of the ground, there are no acorns on that tree for another 3-4 years or whatever. When an apple tree sprouts out of the ground, you’re not going eat apples for several years. Years!

everything there is on the earth, came out of the earth. Everything on the earth came out of the earth.Why would God who gives so much of importance to the minute details of things create gold from nothing?

 

[Sanashankar]

Not to mention that God isn't limited by what you think takes millions of years to accomplish.

It is not impossible for God to created anything within seconds....but God moves according to the righteous law created by himself. Wee see in matthew

Mt 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay [them] on men's shoulders; but they [themselves] will not move them with one of their fingers.

Jesus is speaking abt the pharisees here, they command the common people to do things by sitting idle. You and me and the whole human beings work hard in our life for our bread, to meet the expenditures in our life.Is He(Jesus Christ, the son)accusing the Pharisees of something His own Father is guilty of?

Is Jesus Christ condemning and berating the Pharisees for something His own Father is guilty of… that He lays heavy burdens on us and He wouldn’t lift them with one of His fingers, but we have to? We have to suffer through sixty or eighty years of sometimes horrible misery and disease and heartache and everything. I don’t think so. I think that God has gone through a lot for us.

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

stay away from the science; you really are an embarrassment and you give our opponents ammunition

Which science are you having trouble understanding? Perhaps I didn't explain it correctly, and can rephrase?

 

[Bookends]

God does not expect us to rely of faith alone, a blind faith. Certainly faith is a major part of it, but in Romans 1:20, Paul makes it clear that we can know God invisible attributes by the things in which He has made.

Therefore, by observing the thing things in which He has made, for example, tree rings, the sequential ice cores at or near the poles (not southern ice land where a lot of melting and refreezing) and the most compelling, star observation.

By looking at the sequential ice cores, we go back and see every corresponding volcano eruption in the ice cores and it correlates with the known volcanic eruptions recorded by man. This proof the earth is older then 6000-10,000 years. The Vostok ice core goes back 440,000 years.

Star observation, the most compelling I think, clearly shows an older universe then 6000-10,000 years. Take supernova 1987a for example. We observed this start before it exploded and became a supernova. To suggest the earth is 6000 years old is to say that this event never happened 168,000 light years ago or is just an illusion. We know that God didn't just created or formed everything at once (God did create ALL Matter at once) and spread it drastically over the void of non-existence in a short period of time, for if He did, the light we observe from distant stars and galaxies would reveal exactly that (when we observe the light). The evidence of what God did follows Him.

[video=youtube;E1pFaslTMAw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1pFaslTMAw[/video]

 

[john832]

True science is in complete harmony with the Word of God, but not all science is true science...

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

There are those with an anti-supernaturalistic bias.

 

[Starcrash]

If the Earth were orbiting the sun, it would be on opposite sides of the sun in Winter and Summer. This huge distance (as the sun is large and far away from Earth in the heliocentric theory) would mean a change in where we observe the stars in the night sky. As there is no observable change in the location of the stars between Winter and Summer, heliocentrists conclude that the star is *so* far away, any change in angle is negligible (and therefore, it would take millions of years for this light to get to Earth). Geocentrists hold that there is no change in angle observed, because there is no change in angle in actuality, because the Earth isn’t moving (this makes the stars *much* closer than light years away).

I wish you'd cite your factual claims, because they are so far off the mark. Doing a Google search, I couldn't even find a fake source that made your claims, which leads me to believe that you are literally making it all up yourself.

There are some stars that are far away, and some that aren't, so we do see changes in the night sky. This is why most of the constellations are only found during certain parts of the year.

Without a sun, we would freeze. The reason that it's colder at night is because the sun is further away. The reason that it's warmer during the summer than the winter is because the days are longer, thus the sun is warming us for longer periods. I shouldn't even have to cite this because it's so easily observable... have you never stepped out into the sunlight and observed its warming effects? Seriously???

 

[posthuman]

If the Earth were orbiting the sun, it would be on opposite sides of the sun in Winter and Summer. This huge distance (as the sun is large and far away from Earth in the heliocentric theory) would mean a change in where we observe the stars in the night sky. As there is no observable change in the location of the stars between Winter and Summer, heliocentrists conclude that the star is *so* far away, any change in angle is negligible (and therefore, it would take millions of years for this light to get to Earth). Geocentrists hold that there is no change in angle observed, because there is no change in angle in actuality, because the Earth isn’t moving (this makes the stars *much* closer than light years away).

two things here --

the difference in distance at perigee & apogee in the earths orbit is not that great as a percentage of the average distance. if proximity to the sun caused seasons, it would be winter in both hemispheres at the same time. this temperature gradient is caused by the tilt of the earth. guess why the polar regions don't melt in the summer?

there is a measurable difference in the relative position of stars when observed 6 months apart. this is called parallax and it's the first way astronomers used to estimate stellar distances. it's an Astronomy 101 exercise that freshman carry out calculations for. all stars withing about 20 parsecs show this behavior.

brother i appreciate your skeptical, thinking mind, but you've been misled on some facts sometimes =o



i know one thing for sure, when He returns, and we are transformed - there will be no need of sunlight, because He will be our light!

 

[CoooCaw]

the vostok icecore does NOT go back 440000; i have no doubt they mischeivously claim so

God does not expect us to rely of faith alone, a blind faith. Certainly faith is a major part of it, but in Romans 1:20, Paul makes it clear that we can know God invisible attributes by the things in which He has made.

Therefore, by observing the thing things in which He has made, for example, tree rings, the sequential ice cores at or near the poles (not southern ice land where a lot of melting and refreezing) and the most compelling, star observation.

By looking at the sequential ice cores, we go back and see every corresponding volcano eruption in the ice cores and it correlates with the known volcanic eruptions recorded by man. This proof the earth is older then 6000-10,000 years. The Vostok ice core goes back 440,000 years.

Star observation, the most compelling I think, clearly shows an older universe then 6000-10,000 years. Take supernova 1987a for example. We observed this start before it exploded and became a supernova. To suggest the earth is 6000 years old is to say that this event never happened 168,000 light years ago or is just an illusion. We know that God didn't just created or formed everything at once (God did create ALL Matter at once) and spread it drastically over the void of non-existence in a short period of time, for if He did, the light we observe from distant stars and galaxies would reveal exactly that (when we observe the light). The evidence of what God did follows Him.

[video=youtube;E1pFaslTMAw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1pFaslTMAw[/video]

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

I wish you'd cite your factual claims, because they are so far off the mark. Doing a Google search, I couldn't even find a fake source that made your claims, which leads me to believe that you are literally making it all up yourself.

I'm having trouble finding a great many sites myself. Its as if the CIA is checking up on what sites I visit, and deleting them as I go. Anyway, I found a different site with the diagram I wanted, to show what I meant. I've also quoted some text from this site.

"Hold your thumb up at arms length. Look at it with one eye. Then look at it with the other eye. Its position appears to change, with respect to the background. This is called parallax. If the earth moves around the Sun, then the apparent positions of the stars must change between January and June. (Even if all the stars are at the same distance, as if drawn on a wall, their positions with respect to one other must change as you get closer and farther away from one side.) The effects of parallax were known as far back as Babylonian times. But, no matter how hard people looked, no parallax could ever be measured. This was taken as proof that the earth did not move. The only alternative was that the Sun must revolve about the earth."

Geocentric vs. Heliocentric

That was what I was referring to.

There are some stars that are far away, and some that aren't, so we do see changes in the night sky. This is why most of the constellations are only found during certain parts of the year.

I don't know enough about this to comment.

Without a sun, we would freeze. The reason that it's colder at night is because the sun is further away. The reason that it's warmer during the summer than the winter is because the days are longer, thus the sun is warming us for longer periods. I shouldn't even have to cite this because it's so easily observable... have you never stepped out into the sunlight and observed its warming effects? Seriously???

Okay, you're right. I concede that it probably would be colder without a sun, like it is at the North pole in Winter. Either way, if God can create day, He can also create warmth. Infrared is just outside the visible spectrum and is classified as electromagnetic radiation, the same as light.

 

[posthuman]

The effects of parallax were known as far back as Babylonian times. But, no matter how hard people looked, no parallax could ever be measured. This was taken as proof that the earth did not move. The only alternative was that the Sun must revolve about the earth."

this is not true.

parallax was measured in the 1800's. you can measure the parallax of vega yourself with a backyard telescope & some careful observation.

the babylonians didn't have telescopes, so they couldn't measure parallax for anything outside of the solar system.

 

[zone]

Sefer HaTemunah (Hebrew: ספר התמונה ‎) (lit. "Book of the Figure", i.e. shape of the Hebrew letters) is a 13–14th century kabbalistic text. It is quoted in many Halakhic sources.

By interpreting the texts of Sefer HaTemunah and the Midrash, Isaac ben Samuel of Acre calculated the age of the universe to be 15,340,500,000 years old.[1][9] His reasoning was as follows: as the Midrash states, "A thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday" (Psalm 90:4); a physical year contains 365 ¼ days, which, if multiplied by 1000 would give the length of a divine year as 365,250 physical years; if we are living in the last, 7th Sabbatical cycle, that would mean that the creation as it described in the Bible happened 42,000 divine years ago; to convert this figure to physical years it should be multiplied by 365,250; this gives the result 15,340,500,000 years.[1]

In 1993, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan wrote that the Big Bang occurred "approximately 15 billion years ago", calling this "the same conclusion" as the 13th century kabbalists.[1] According to a 2010 estimate by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe project, the age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.13 billion years.[10]

Sefer HaTemunah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < click

Freemasons have always been in the forefront of the scientific community; from the founding of the British Royal Society to today’s NASA programme in the United States.

The following is a short and incomplete list 1 of Brethren who have contributed to the exploration of outer space.

Freemasons in Space < click


MAGICIANS WITH COMPUTER MODELS WHO REALLY REALLY NEED A BIG BANG?
no thanks those guys can't be trusted.

 

[posthuman]

1 Kings 8:17“My father David had it in his heart to build a temple for the Name of the Lord, the God of Israel.

"a temple for THE NAME of the Lord"

Acts 17:24 --
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands."

 

[zone]

Kabbalistic Cosmology and its parallels in the ‘Big-Bang' of Modern Physics

Kabbalistic Cosmology < click

Re: Does Science go against faith? not certain "faiths"

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

this is not true. parallax was measured in the 1800's.

Okay - Wikipedia source, so not 100% reliable, but...

Parallax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The angles involved in these calculations are very small and thus difficult to measure. The nearest star to the Sun (and thus the star with the largest parallax), Proxima Centauri, has a parallax of 0.7687 ± 0.0003 arcsec.[SUP][7][/SUP] This angle is approximately that subtended by an object 2 centimeters in diameter located 5.3 kilometers away."
So this article is saying that the largest parallax is measured at 0.0002 degrees? Do you realise how small that is?

you can measure the parallax of vega yourself with a backyard telescope & some careful observation. the babylonians didn't have telescopes, so they couldn't measure parallax for anything outside of the solar system.

So you have some backyard gear that's accurate enough to measure the angle subtended by a 2cm coin, at a distance of 5.3km?

Sorry, but this angle is close enough to 0 for me to call it 0. Sure, there might be a reason for the minute deviation from 0, but I say that the reason for this could be anything, not necessarily the revolution of the Earth around the sun. And let me also say that the scientific establishment's record for honesty is not quite 100%, so it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the maximum stellar parallax of 1/5 of 1/1000 of a single degree is nothing more than experimental error.

 

[zone]

Kabbalistic Cosmology and its parallels in the ‘Big-Bang' of Modern Physics

Kabbalistic Cosmology < click

Re: Does Science go against faith? not certain "faiths"

maybe ppl want to reconsider that what they believe is actually a religion



Sabbatianism, Tikkun and the Big Bang Theory

Yakov Leib haKohain


"In previous essay I have alluded to the fact that Isaac Luria's 16th century, Kabbalistic notion of the "Sheviret HaKelim" (or "Shattering of the Vessels") -- on which the Neo-Sabbatian concept of Tikkun, or "Holy Repair of the Face of God" -- is virtually identical to that of the "Big Bang" theory of 20th-century astrophysics. The importance of this is that modern science has literally confirmed the validity of Lurianic and, therefore, Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah and, by extension, the Jewish mystical texts, such as the Zohar, on which they were based. In this new series, I propose to explore this radical idea in greater detail and from the perspectives of Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah, astrophysics and Jungian metaphysics...."

Sabbatianism, Tikkun and the Big Bang Theory < click

 

[zone]

maybe ppl want to reconsider that what they believe is actually a religion

Sabbatianism, Tikkun and the Big Bang Theory

Yakov Leib haKohain

"In previous essay I have alluded to the fact that Isaac Luria's 16th century, Kabbalistic notion of the "Sheviret HaKelim" (or "Shattering of the Vessels") -- on which the Neo-Sabbatian concept of Tikkun, or "Holy Repair of the Face of God" -- is virtually identical to that of the "Big Bang" theory of 20th-century astrophysics. The importance of this is that modern science has literally confirmed the validity of Lurianic and, therefore, Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah and, by extension, the Jewish mystical texts, such as the Zohar, on which they were based. In this new series, I propose to explore this radical idea in greater detail and from the perspectives of Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah, astrophysics and Jungian metaphysics...."

Sabbatianism, Tikkun and the Big Bang Theory < click

Classic Kabbalah defines En-Sof, the "No-Thing," as "Formlessness" and "Perfect Unity," the Monad of Gnosticism, Tao of Taoism, Brahaman of Vedanta, Buddha-Nature of Buddhism, etc. It is likened to a "Cloud" or "Vapor" filling and filled by -- which is to say, coextensive with -- the entire universe. At a certain moment, according to Luria, this En-Sof determines to Create; but since it is everywhere and everything no room exists within itself for anything else except itself. Consequently, Luria says, En-Sof "contracted into and away from itself" to make a primeaval space within which to enact the event of creation. This he called the "TzimTzum." (We shall see later in our discussion that modern astrophysics uses almost precisely the same metaphors to describe the Big Bang of creation.)

Sabbatianism, Tikkun and the Big Bang Theory < click


oopsie