Does Science go against faith?
- Thread starter Blain
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
What about this one?
Notice that the animal footprint is ON TOP of the human footprint. How is it possible for both to exist in the very same rock at the very same time? If you know anything about fossils it is NOT possible for them to form at DIFFERENT times.
Notice that the animal footprint is ON TOP of the human footprint. How is it possible for both to exist in the very same rock at the very same time? If you know anything about fossils it is NOT possible for them to form at DIFFERENT times.
There's a good reason that this is posted on a Christian website rather than a scientific journal. If someone had found such a verified set of prints, they would've certainly won a Nobel Prize for such a dramatic shift that it would cause in evolutionary thinking.
M
Yes, because Christians are the only ones that could possibly be lying about scientific claims, and evolutionists never lie or use deceptive tactics to purport their claims of evolution. So to summarize, anything evolutionists say about science is automatically true and trustable, and anything Christians say about science is automatically false and they're lying if it is in conflict with anything the evolutionists claim is true.
M
Clearly, they are some type of huge, terrible, reptilian-type beast, possibly dreamed up in ancient man's imagination and described all over the world, but not dinosaurs. Those "bones" - just unusual, exotic rock formations. Footprints - simply a father and his child going for a walk in the forest. The father was very tall, and had some sort of foot deformation.
Same as that imaginary ether that was mentioned earlier. It looks like ether, it acts like ether, but it is most definitely not ether.
Our senses, and indeed, pretty much all of creation, are forever trying to deceive us into believing things are exactly as they appear. Thankfully, we have scientists who are able to dispel such superstitions and explain to us why pretty much everything we see, feel and experience is wrong. Don't you understand anything about science?
Same as that imaginary ether that was mentioned earlier. It looks like ether, it acts like ether, but it is most definitely not ether.
Our senses, and indeed, pretty much all of creation, are forever trying to deceive us into believing things are exactly as they appear. Thankfully, we have scientists who are able to dispel such superstitions and explain to us why pretty much everything we see, feel and experience is wrong. Don't you understand anything about science?
O
I will make this as short as possible. 1.Earth reeling to and fro. Think of jar of water with dirt and debris in it. Shake it up real good. 2. As everything settles on Earth from shaking things begin to layer according to density. (strata) You will rarely find anything in complete form (bones)so most have to be pieced together and imagination begins.
2. post flood humans lived to be 600 or more years old. We can probably assume animals lived longer too.The state of earth was perfect at this time allowing people and animals to b optimal size and healthy with longivity Reptiles continue to grow their entire life. So if reptiles continue to grow say 400 years they would be very large.
okay that is the short end of the stick on this.
2. post flood humans lived to be 600 or more years old. We can probably assume animals lived longer too.The state of earth was perfect at this time allowing people and animals to b optimal size and healthy with longivity Reptiles continue to grow their entire life. So if reptiles continue to grow say 400 years they would be very large.
okay that is the short end of the stick on this.
M
"Accordingly, since nothing prevents the earth from moving, I suggest that we should now consider also whether several motions suit it, so that it can be regarded as one of the planets. For, it is not the center of all the revolutions.”
In other words, "I know of nothing stopping the Earth from moving, and it's not the center of all revolutions, so let's just assume that it moves! "
Copernicus
In other words, "I know of nothing stopping the Earth from moving, and it's not the center of all revolutions, so let's just assume that it moves!
"Copernicus
while we were part of the world, we focused on the world, the flesh, the earth, and described all motion relative to it, but the heavens didn't make sense to us.
when our eyes were opened to the light, we focused on the light, the spirit, the sun, and described all motion relative to it, and the movements of the heavens became revealed to us in order and harmony.
the Copernican revolution of understanding reflects the revolution of Grace that is the new covenant; the motions of the heavens aren't precipitated by the law of the earth, but it is the laws of the heavens that the earth itself is subject to.
if i am a bug living on a baseball that is thrown through the air, all i am concerned with is moving from one part of the baseball to another; i may as well assume the baseball is stationary, but this understanding is insufficient for me to make sense of the world apparently whizzing by outside the ball.
when we were in the flesh, not having any understanding of spiritual things, we were only concerned with the flesh, and we measured all things according to it, and the things of the spirit made no sense to us.
if i am a player on the field watching the baseball fly towards the outfield, and i want to catch the ball, i don't think of the ball being stationary, because the field is my reference point, and relative to it the ball is moving.
when we walk in the light, our reference frame isn't the flesh any longer, but being focused on heavenly things, we see the path of all flesh, of the earth, of the end of all things.
the Christian walk is like a relativity theory, where in the physical sense all motion is measured & limited by the speed of light, to us all things are measured & judged by the Word of Light. all creation testifies to the greatness of the creator - that it is the flesh that is subjected to the light, and not the heavens that are subjected to the flesh, doesn't this speak to the glory of 'the one true light of the world?'
when our eyes were opened to the light, we focused on the light, the spirit, the sun, and described all motion relative to it, and the movements of the heavens became revealed to us in order and harmony.
the Copernican revolution of understanding reflects the revolution of Grace that is the new covenant; the motions of the heavens aren't precipitated by the law of the earth, but it is the laws of the heavens that the earth itself is subject to.
if i am a bug living on a baseball that is thrown through the air, all i am concerned with is moving from one part of the baseball to another; i may as well assume the baseball is stationary, but this understanding is insufficient for me to make sense of the world apparently whizzing by outside the ball.
when we were in the flesh, not having any understanding of spiritual things, we were only concerned with the flesh, and we measured all things according to it, and the things of the spirit made no sense to us.
if i am a player on the field watching the baseball fly towards the outfield, and i want to catch the ball, i don't think of the ball being stationary, because the field is my reference point, and relative to it the ball is moving.
when we walk in the light, our reference frame isn't the flesh any longer, but being focused on heavenly things, we see the path of all flesh, of the earth, of the end of all things.
the Christian walk is like a relativity theory, where in the physical sense all motion is measured & limited by the speed of light, to us all things are measured & judged by the Word of Light. all creation testifies to the greatness of the creator - that it is the flesh that is subjected to the light, and not the heavens that are subjected to the flesh, doesn't this speak to the glory of 'the one true light of the world?'
Yes, the religious lie about scientific claims. They have motive to shape reality to fit their holy book. Scientists are rewarded for advancing our body of knowledge (such as with the Nobel Prize and other such accolades), and so they are motivated to discover what's actually true. But there's also the fact that scientists' discoveries are open to peer-review and must pass it, as the dino print mixed with a human print did not. Consider the discovery of a supposed "Goldilocks planet" (planet suitable for life) found a few years ago -- when it was publicly published, other scientists checked it out and discovered that they original scientists were mistaken. That planet didn't support any religious beliefs, but rather its description as suitable for life wasn't true or verifiable, and so other scientists showed it to be false. The same is true about many of the earlier theories of evolution, which is why only Darwin's model remains.
When trying to verify a person's claims, their motives ought to be considered. A Christian whose holy book says that evolution didn't happen has a conflict of interest when checking the claims of evolutionary biologists, and so we're not surprised when they see the evidence differently than those of us who don't have the same conflict of interest. I know that you keep trying to prove that we have a similar conflict of interest, but that's only because you keep denying that we don't need evolution to be true in order for your God hypothesis to be false... evolution could be completely false and Yahweh would still be false, too.
When trying to verify a person's claims, their motives ought to be considered. A Christian whose holy book says that evolution didn't happen has a conflict of interest when checking the claims of evolutionary biologists, and so we're not surprised when they see the evidence differently than those of us who don't have the same conflict of interest. I know that you keep trying to prove that we have a similar conflict of interest, but that's only because you keep denying that we don't need evolution to be true in order for your God hypothesis to be false... evolution could be completely false and Yahweh would still be false, too.
M
Do scientists get paid? Who pays the scientists? Who funds (controls) the organisations that pay the scientists? Can scientists lose their jobs/grants/tenures/reputations if they publish or even say something that these organisations do not approve of? (Hint: yes). To state that any scientist is unbiased because they don't have a "holy book" is naive (they do, its just most scientists don't know about it - all they know is that their funding/employment may cease if they speak against it). Peer-review is just more of the same. If its unlikely you'll get one scientists to speak out against the lies at great personal cost to himself and his family, how much more unlikely is it for two or more scientists? (Hint: x^n, where x is the likelihood of one scientist speaking the truth, and n is the number of scientists required for peer review).
Did you ever wonder who funded Darwin? He seemed to be very lucky on the shares. Almost like he had insider knowledge. Why is that important? Because the same people who controlled/manipulated the share market back then, control governments and educational institutions today. Same people, same religion being preached. The preachers (Darwin, scientists etc.) might not know its a religion - they just know the money will stop if they preach against it, no matter where the truth may lead.
Did you ever wonder who funded Darwin? He seemed to be very lucky on the shares. Almost like he had insider knowledge. Why is that important? Because the same people who controlled/manipulated the share market back then, control governments and educational institutions today. Same people, same religion being preached. The preachers (Darwin, scientists etc.) might not know its a religion - they just know the money will stop if they preach against it, no matter where the truth may lead.
Thomas Henry Huxley PC FRS FLS (4 May 1825 – 29 June 1895) was an English biologist (comparative anatomist), known as "Darwin's Bulldog" for his advocacy of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.[1]
Thomas Henry Huxley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
all in the family, that's all.
they needed a theory that would validate their having 'evolved' into the uber-elite.
they sent out their 7th son.
Thomas Henry Huxley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
all in the family, that's all.
they needed a theory that would validate their having 'evolved' into the uber-elite.
they sent out their 7th son.
Darwin comes up with evolution, then his cousin, Galton comes up with eugenics, look at that evolution justifies killing off masses of people under eugenics, and then Marx makes a tidy lilltle form of government (communisim/Socialisim/Facisim/Corpratisim) that both these ideas fit into. satan loves it.