Religon Vs. Science

  • 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.
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
mainstream science does not support evolution for creation anymore. it has to many holes in the theory. most of the science world are starting to lean more to the theory of intelligent design. they still wont admit our Lord as the designer but that goes without saying.
You are confused, very confused.

You are confused about evolution.

You are confused about intelligent design.

The Catholic Church and other denominations support theistic evolution.

Intelligent design is a Young Earth Creationist (think Institute for Creation Research) thing.
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
While there are no errors in the KJV translation of this verse, my alternate reading is equally free from errors and is set forth as another possible reading NOT as a correction.
Are you one of those who believes the KJV is without error?
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
Okay good, you don't think the KJV is inerrant.

You made a comment about Intelligent Design.

What do you think Intelligent Design is, exactly?

An interpretation from federal court decisions on the subject would be good, not what your dad told you about it.
 
M

mikeuk

Guest
Disenfranchisement of God should not be (and I would argue isn't usually) the intent for evolutionary theory. The intent in theorizing based off evidence is to find ways to explain that evidence. Now, within the scientific paradigm, those events must be explained naturally, for science is about the natural and physical world, not the metaphysical (that which is not natural). So, science not only should not be used to try to disprove the notion of God, it should actually have no part whatsoever in metaphysical matters.
Words like " metaphysical" " paranormal" and " supernatural" are subjective and do not help.


And as I demonstrated to you science is a model of observations not, or not necessarily underlying cause, so even " natural" is open to discussion, and in reality explanation needs context too: it means only that it lies within the model rather than outside. Massive philosophical difference. Also science considers only the repeatable or repeated. Things that happen only once, cannot be discounted as outside the natural world even if they are outside the scientific world

All I am saying is science is not the be all and end all of truth.

It is a tool, and a good one, that is all.
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2014
1,150
7
0
Words like " metaphysical" " paranormal" and " supernatural" are subjective and do not help.


And as I demonstrated to you science is a model of observations not, or not necessarily underlying cause, so even " natural" is open to discussion, and in reality explanation needs context too: it means only that it lies within the model rather than outside. Massive philosophical difference. Also science considers only the repeatable or repeated. Things that happen only once, cannot be discounted as outside the natural world even if they are outside the scientific world

All I am saying is science is not the be all and end all of truth.

It is a tool, and a good one, that is all.
That's great, but you missed the point, which was; science shouldn't be used to try to prove or disprove God, since it deals with the physical and natural world. PHYSICAL, NATURAL.

What is God?

An unobservable creator who is supposed to be of some human form, existing outside and within all know natural and unnatural things, both the physical and metaphysical, at all times and in all spaces, having created everything that exists yet being himself not-created, silently judging the minutae of human behaviour. I have trouble believing anybody who believes that can have any sense of scientific boundary -- where knowledge stops and where superstitions begin.
 
Aug 5, 2013
624
2
0
The bible is a bad book to draw scientific truths from -- and not just because a literal reading argues against the evidence for evolution. Consider Leviticus 11:6. It claims that rabbits are "unclean" because they don't have a divided hoof despite chewing the cud, which not even a creationist can claim with a straight face; it simply isn't true. The bible existed in a pre-science era, before many things that scientists have discovered since (such as dinosaur fossils, which is why the bible is silent about such a topic that would have been more than a little important to people allegedly co-existing with such danger).
 
Aug 5, 2013
624
2
0
That's great, but you missed the point, which was; science shouldn't be used to try to prove or disprove God, since it deals with the physical and natural world. PHYSICAL, NATURAL.
Science isn't used to "disprove God" -- science is based on methodological naturalism, and thus has nothing to say on supernatural topics. It does, however, demonstrate that God isn't needed to explain any natural phenomenon. It also demonstrates that some factual claims made by the bible are false. This is why science is at odds with Christianity, even if science isn't used as a tool for proving or disproving God.
 
P

popeye

Guest
"An unobservable creator who is supposed to be of some human form, existing outside and within all know natural and unnatural things, both the physical and metaphysical, at all times and in all spaces, having created everything that exists yet being himself not-created, silently judging the minutae of human behaviour. I have trouble believing anybody who believes that can have any sense of scientific boundary -- where knowledge stops and where superstitions begin."


Under this logic I have a new ,hands down,irrefutable,scientific observation.

I have never met the architect,engineer,or builder of the sears tower in chicago.
Therefore I must discount any notion that it had any such architect or builder. It simply evolved over millions of years from the same ancestor as the other buildings. heck,they all can be explained this way as I have never met any acrchitect in my life....so scientific logic also dictates they do not exist.

Simple. And somehow refreshing that we can just make things up as we go. So novel,so perfect for our school children.
 
P

popeye

Guest
And if anyone challenges this,I have been taught to say "hey man you ever heard of a library?","a little time in school would be beneficial dude","you just do not understand building evolution"
 
Aug 5, 2013
624
2
0
Under this logic I have a new ,hands down,irrefutable,scientific observation.

I have never met the architect,engineer,or builder of the sears tower in chicago.
Therefore I must discount any notion that it had any such architect or builder. It simply evolved over millions of years from the same ancestor as the other buildings. heck,they all can be explained this way as I have never met any acrchitect in my life....so scientific logic also dictates they do not exist.

Simple. And somehow refreshing that we can just make things up as we go. So novel,so perfect for our school children.[/COLOR]
Do you have evidence that buildings "evolved over millions of years", or have you created a false dilemma between buildings having creators or being the product of evolution?

I don't think you understand "scientific logic". Scientists follow the evidence. They would believe that buildings have creators because they have observed buildings being created. There is no observation of living things being created by supernatural beings, thus such a conclusion isn't "scientific".
 
P

popeye

Guest
Do you have evidence that buildings "evolved over millions of years", or have you created a false dilemma between buildings having creators or being the product of evolution?

I don't think you understand "scientific logic". Scientists follow the evidence. They would believe that buildings have creators because they have observed buildings being created. There is no observation of living things being created by supernatural beings, thus such a conclusion isn't "scientific".

Thus the buffoonery of evolution. I could arrive from another planet where there were zero buildings and make the simplest observation that someone created them.
I do not NEED to see the creator,only the blatant,no brainer evidence of engineering.
 
Oct 30, 2014
1,150
7
0
Under this logic I have a new ,hands down,irrefutable,scientific observation.

I have never met the architect,engineer,or builder of the sears tower in chicago.
Therefore I must discount any notion that it had any such architect or builder. It simply evolved over millions of years from the same ancestor as the other buildings.
This isn't following the same logic. It's a fault analogy and a faulty correlation. The Sears Towers are human buildings, that's clear simply from looking at them. We know humans built them. The logic is childish at best.

heck,they all can be explained this way as I have never met any acrchitect in my life....so scientific logic also dictates they do not exist.
'fraid not.

Simple. And somehow refreshing that we can just make things up as we go. So novel,so perfect for our school children.
Except, it isn't what we teach our schoolchildren. It's what adults make up and say we teach our children, and it isn't logic. In fact, it's a false dilemma and a faulty correlation -- it's distinctly NOT logic. You confuse the big bang and evolution. You confuse abiogenesis and evolution. You confuse human architecture with metaphysical notions of creators creating the observable and unobservable universe and you confuse being logical for being nonsensical.
 
Oct 30, 2014
1,150
7
0
Thus the buffoonery of evolution. I could arrive from another planet where there were zero buildings and make the simplest observation that someone created them.
I do not NEED to see the creator,only the blatant,no brainer evidence of engineering.
Could you? Would you like to PROVE that hypothesis and give us EVIDENCE for it? Perhaps you could move to Mars and have your memory erased ..
 
P

popeye

Guest
Could you? Would you like to PROVE that hypothesis and give us EVIDENCE for it? Perhaps you could move to Mars and have your memory erased ..
Again,you evo guys decieve yourselves and make more points for "intellegent design" in that no true science would need the obvious to be proven.

"we do conceed there was a rifle shot next to the tree,but the bullet hole must be a hole from something other than a rifle.And those powder burns just have to be from something else.....just gotta be,just gotta be"

Uh,BTW,you have zero "proof" of evolution. It is a weird theory,a really far fetched rediculous theory taught to our children as a fact.
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
Thus the buffoonery of evolution. I could arrive from another planet where there were zero buildings and make the simplest observation that someone created them.
I do not NEED to see the creator,only the blatant,no brainer evidence of engineering.
You do understand that some rather large Christian denominations support evolution.

Right?
 
P

popeye

Guest
You do understand that some rather large Christian denominations support evolution.

Right?
Well these days groups that call Jesus a liar can and will most likely be considered by some to be "christian" when in fact they are not..
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
Well these days groups that call Jesus a liar can and will most likely be considered by some to be "christian" when in fact they are not..
Are you saying that any denomination that supports theistic evolution is not Christian?
 
P

popeye

Guest
Lets just see if there is any room for a "christian" to believe God did not create the earth and every single living thing:

John 1 King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

This basically says all the humanoids saying God did not create ALL LIVING THINGS,including the earth and stars.......you are all liars.

Therefore there is no such thing as a TRUE CHRISTIAN that defends and believes in this evo heresy.
Now I do not call you a heretic,heaven calls you one.

So do not say you are a christian and defend lies that call Jesus a fraud and a liar.
The word of God testifies aganst you,and you align yourselfs against Christ and his word
 
Last edited:
P

popeye

Guest
Are you saying that any denomination that supports theistic evolution is not Christian?
Are you saying those groups do not believe Jesus is the creator of ALL THINGS?