How can Christians stop godless scientists making discoveries that contradict
- Thread starter Desiree
- Start date
SmRmmsRlglmlrmtlmVI°
New member
I find it very arrogant that Atheist argue that the Genesis account isn't scientifically accurate. But then lack in trying to understand that Genesis 1;3 is describing a light which is neither Christ or the sun but ionized gas particles. God created energy and it is described in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is not a science book. It is about the History of a people. Through which many ways describes scientific understanding in the developing of their culture. It is claimed from Atheist that the Bible teaches the earth to be flat. Common logic teaches that if a person is above earth it will have a circular shape. Secularism Humanism is Greek science. It is not the original form of how science was understood.
BibleStudent
New member
If you read the Bible and then read what the scientists say.
They are unable to contradict the Bible.
They usually claim that what is says is not correct or they have a theory that disagrees with it.
Archaeology, history, chemistry, medicine or any other science has never proved a fact stated in the Bible to be wrong.
They are unable to contradict the Bible.
They usually claim that what is says is not correct or they have a theory that disagrees with it.
Archaeology, history, chemistry, medicine or any other science has never proved a fact stated in the Bible to be wrong.
skiingstowe
New member
Hi,
There is no need to stop something that hasn't happened yet. All science that becomes a Scientific Law is testable. All other none verifiable science is just theory. So far there have been no discoveries that contradict the Bible. However there have been discoveries that contradict certain beliefs of some Christian sects.
There is no need to stop something that hasn't happened yet. All science that becomes a Scientific Law is testable. All other none verifiable science is just theory. So far there have been no discoveries that contradict the Bible. However there have been discoveries that contradict certain beliefs of some Christian sects.
HarryHendersen
New member
Unfortunately, most godless scientists have already made up their minds. So far in fact that they make up stuff to prove their way. A good recent example of that is 'global warming'. If it was allowed I would highly question these 'scientists' finding and 'evidence', but you can't.
IF you study science correctly you will discover that it actually points MORE to God than not. The intricacies that science points out makes it actually harder to believe there is no God. It is truly mind-boggling to discover how life AND this planet work. There is a higher power that carefully crafted this planet and it's NOT the 'scientists'.
IF you study science correctly you will discover that it actually points MORE to God than not. The intricacies that science points out makes it actually harder to believe there is no God. It is truly mind-boggling to discover how life AND this planet work. There is a higher power that carefully crafted this planet and it's NOT the 'scientists'.
HobbieHorse
New member
Elect more Republicans.
chas_chas_123
New member
Scientists (godless or otherwise) do not make *discoveries* that contradict the Bible. They make *interpretations* of the evidence that contradict it.
The fossil record is a good example. Evolutionists claim the fossils and the rocks they are in, are millions of years old. And claim they support evolution. That contradicts the Bible. Creationists claim that the rocks and fossils were laid down rapidly by the global Flood.
We all share exactly the same evidence, which exists in the present. Creationists and evolutionists interpret the same evidence with different worldviews. That is different assumptions about the past and different philosophical approaches.
People who dismiss creation as 'unscientific', or who claim that evolution (or creation) is 'proved', have missed the point. They either don't understand what science is, or want to hoodwink people into agreeing with them.
It is not possible to prove anything about the unobserved past using the scientific method, which involves observation, testing, repeating.
If one was to take an unbiased approach, one would ask simply which of creation and evolution provides the best explanation of the observed evidence. It is difficult to take an unbiased approach, since we all have a worldview.
I used to believe that evolution was the best explanation, but then I discovered that there is an awful lot of evidence which contradicts evolution, which is 'hidden' by evolutionists and most of the media. But if you check Aig you will see that evolution is quite easy to refute scientifically.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/index.asp
The fossil record is a good example. Evolutionists claim the fossils and the rocks they are in, are millions of years old. And claim they support evolution. That contradicts the Bible. Creationists claim that the rocks and fossils were laid down rapidly by the global Flood.
We all share exactly the same evidence, which exists in the present. Creationists and evolutionists interpret the same evidence with different worldviews. That is different assumptions about the past and different philosophical approaches.
People who dismiss creation as 'unscientific', or who claim that evolution (or creation) is 'proved', have missed the point. They either don't understand what science is, or want to hoodwink people into agreeing with them.
It is not possible to prove anything about the unobserved past using the scientific method, which involves observation, testing, repeating.
If one was to take an unbiased approach, one would ask simply which of creation and evolution provides the best explanation of the observed evidence. It is difficult to take an unbiased approach, since we all have a worldview.
I used to believe that evolution was the best explanation, but then I discovered that there is an awful lot of evidence which contradicts evolution, which is 'hidden' by evolutionists and most of the media. But if you check Aig you will see that evolution is quite easy to refute scientifically.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/index.asp
As patronising as this question sounds, where did you get this crazy idea that scientists are athiests?
Some of the best scientific discoveries were made by religious people
Who do you think led us to the Big Bang Theory? A Catholic priest
Modern theories these days are usually based on mathematical models with the aim of backing them up with observation
And who do you think the West have to thank for modern mathematics? Islamic scholars
Some of the best scientific discoveries were made by religious people
Who do you think led us to the Big Bang Theory? A Catholic priest
Modern theories these days are usually based on mathematical models with the aim of backing them up with observation
And who do you think the West have to thank for modern mathematics? Islamic scholars
Jabberwock1
New member
Bring back heresy trials!
For over a millennium the Christian church's doctrine claimed the Sun orbits the Earth, based on faith. Those who would dare to disagree would face torture, a heresy trial and being burned at the stake.
Eventually in the Renaissance period, Galileo was one of those who suspected this geocentrism idea was incorrect, and that the Earth actually orbits the Sun. Heliocentrism. He tried to use evidence of non-geocentrism, using observation of Jupiter's moons viewed through an early telescope. If non-geocentrism could be established, then heliocentrism is a possibility, but would need further research. Of course, considering potential outcomes of such research would need freedom of belief...
"Freedom of belief is pernicious. It is nothing but the freedom to be wrong." -Cardinal Bellarmine
Galileo argued in favour of experiments to learn more:
"The doctrine of the movements of the earth and the fixity of the sun is condemned on the ground that the Scriptures speak in many places of the sun moving and the earth standing still... I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments and demonstrations."
The church was having none of it, and made a formal declaration in its indictment of Galileo:
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the centre of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both psychologically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith."
Cardinal Bellarmine, during the trial of Galileo, stated:
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
Of course, he may have been correct there...
Thereby the church tried to stifle any use of evidence to investigate further, in case it produced results that conflicted with its doctrine. Galileo was tried for heresy in 1633, and shown the equipment that would be used to torture him if he didn't recant. He recanted, had to end his science, and died a broken man.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html
The same church finally accepted Galileo had been right - in 1992.
However, Galileo's work did inspire others who were able to repeat his observations and take them further, outside the control of the church (this was the time of the Reformation). This is regarded as the end of the scientific Dark Ages, which began in 415 CE when the secular pagan scientist Hypatia was murdered by a Christian mob in Alexandria.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/greece/paganism/hypatia.html
If scientists received torture and execution instead of Nobel Prizes, then the church would be able to stop such scientific discoveries that make them keep having to change their stance. It worked for a thousand years, so it could work again.
For over a millennium the Christian church's doctrine claimed the Sun orbits the Earth, based on faith. Those who would dare to disagree would face torture, a heresy trial and being burned at the stake.
Eventually in the Renaissance period, Galileo was one of those who suspected this geocentrism idea was incorrect, and that the Earth actually orbits the Sun. Heliocentrism. He tried to use evidence of non-geocentrism, using observation of Jupiter's moons viewed through an early telescope. If non-geocentrism could be established, then heliocentrism is a possibility, but would need further research. Of course, considering potential outcomes of such research would need freedom of belief...
"Freedom of belief is pernicious. It is nothing but the freedom to be wrong." -Cardinal Bellarmine
Galileo argued in favour of experiments to learn more:
"The doctrine of the movements of the earth and the fixity of the sun is condemned on the ground that the Scriptures speak in many places of the sun moving and the earth standing still... I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments and demonstrations."
The church was having none of it, and made a formal declaration in its indictment of Galileo:
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the centre of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both psychologically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith."
Cardinal Bellarmine, during the trial of Galileo, stated:
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
Of course, he may have been correct there...
Thereby the church tried to stifle any use of evidence to investigate further, in case it produced results that conflicted with its doctrine. Galileo was tried for heresy in 1633, and shown the equipment that would be used to torture him if he didn't recant. He recanted, had to end his science, and died a broken man.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html
The same church finally accepted Galileo had been right - in 1992.
However, Galileo's work did inspire others who were able to repeat his observations and take them further, outside the control of the church (this was the time of the Reformation). This is regarded as the end of the scientific Dark Ages, which began in 415 CE when the secular pagan scientist Hypatia was murdered by a Christian mob in Alexandria.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/greece/paganism/hypatia.html
If scientists received torture and execution instead of Nobel Prizes, then the church would be able to stop such scientific discoveries that make them keep having to change their stance. It worked for a thousand years, so it could work again.
GOD'sGiftTedAndru
New member
ugh troll. i'll tell you what to do. stop trolling. it's called the illuminati. they make up lies and distract the masses so they can force feed them the lies. and eventually they happily accept the lies
TheRainbowintheSky
New member
The bible ,vs, a science textbook full of observable facts: To make them agree the bible must be edited.