Christianity: Friend or foe to science?

[Theo1689]

FYI: Something many people don't know is that absolutely speaking, it is not true that the earth orbits the sun. Einstein demonstrated that since space is not absolute, then how one celestial body moves about another body is a matter of which body is chosen as "still" and which body is seen as "moving."

Stop trying to boast.
I TEACH Einsteinian physics.

When two objects move throw each other's gravitational field, they rotate around a common centre of mass of the system of both bodies together, where the centre of mass is proportional to the relative masses of the bodies.

This can go from double stars of equal mass, and the centre of rotation is between them, or it can be like the Sun-Earth system.

The centre of mass of the Sun-Earth system is located inside the volume of the Sun, meaning that the Earth effectively rotates around the Sun.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Stop trying to boast.
I TEACH Einsteinian physics.

When two objects move throw each other's gravitational field, they rotate around a common centre of mass of the system of both bodies together, where the centre of mass is proportional to the relative masses of the bodies.

This can go from double stars of equal mass, and the centre of rotation is between them, or it can be like the Sun-Earth system.

The centre of mass of the Sun-Earth system is located inside the volume of the Sun, meaning that the Earth effectively rotates around the Sun.

That's Newtonian physics. Einstein proved it wrong. There is no absolute space.

I thought you said you teach biology.

Anyway, am I supposed to believe you teach physics when you don't know the difference between Newton's work and Einstein's theory?

 

[Theo1689]

That's Newtonian physics. Einstein proved it wrong. There is no absolute space.

Newtonian physics is a subset of Einsteinian physics.
Newton's equations are adequate approximations of Einstein's equations for relatively small velocities.

I thought you said you teach biology.

You got one right!
I guess you're not aware that teachers can (and often do) teach multiple subjects.
You demonstrate more ignorance every time you post.

Anyway, am I supposed to believe you teach physics when you don't know the difference between Newton's work and Einstein's theory?

<Chuckle>

So you can't win a debate on the internet, so you resort to insult and ad hominem.
So sad.

Like I said... You're unteachable.
You think you have perfect understanding of all things.
So I will leave you to your own delusion.

 

[LifeIn]

FYI: Something many people don't know is that absolutely speaking, it is not true that the earth orbits the sun. Einstein demonstrated that since space is not absolute, then how one celestial body moves about another body is a matter of which body is chosen as "still" and which body is seen as "moving."

The view of the sun rotating around the earth is not equally valid as the view where the earth rotates around the sun. The sun-centered view is closer to being an inertial frame of reference than the earth-centered one. And, by the way, this has nothing to do with Einstein or relativity, which is poorly understood as what you make it out to be. It is regular old Newtonian mechanics, which, for the speeds involved with the earth and the sun, are not contradicted by Einstein. You don't really get to anything that contradicts Newtonian mechanics until you involve speeds that are a substantial fraction of the speed of light. Any, getting back to sun-centered vs earth-centered, in the sun-centered view, the motion of the earth can be completely explained by the effect of gravity on the earth. But in the earth-centered model, the "motion" of the sun around the earth cannot be explained by the puny little gravity exerted by the earth on the sun. The two views are not equally valid, Einstein or not. Now if you really want to know what Relativity is about, talk to a physics teacher. (or I could tell you, but I would rather defer to an authority.)

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The view of the sun rotating around the earth is not equally valid as the view where the earth rotates around the sun. The sun-centered view is closer to being an inertial frame of reference than the earth-centered one. And, by the way, this has nothing to do with Einstein or relativity, which is poorly understood as what you make it out to be. It is regular old Newtonian mechanics, which, for the speeds involved with the earth and the sun, are not contradicted by Einstein. You don't really get to anything that contradicts Newtonian mechanics until you involve speeds that are a substantial fraction of the speed of light. Any, getting back to sun-centered vs earth-centered, in the sun-centered view, the motion of the earth can be completely explained by the effect of gravity on the earth. But in the earth-centered model, the "motion" of the sun around the earth cannot be explained by the puny little gravity exerted by the earth on the sun. The two views are not equally valid, Einstein or not. Now if you really want to know what Relativity is about, talk to a physics teacher. (or I could tell you, but I would rather defer to an authority.)

Let's see what physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow have to say about the issue of which celestial body orbits which. On pages 41-42 of The Grand Design they write:

So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish (in its bowl looking out), one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest. Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.

So over the years I've learned to fact-check what anonymous people in internet forums claim. They're often wrong, so I look up known, credible sources to see what's more likely true. In this case you're being contradicted by experts, so I will go with what Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow have to say about the subject. As far as I know you're just moving in to rescue Theo from an imminent spanking.

But it's too late!

 

[LifeIn]

Let's see what physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow have to say about the issue of which celestial body orbits which. On pages 41-42 of The Grand Design they write:

So over the years I've learned to fact-check what anonymous people in internet forums claim.

You have failed in this case because you have failed to understand not only Einstein but now Stephen Hawking as well. You failed to appreciate the significance of the last sentence you quoted, which I will quote again here:

...the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.

The equations of motion assuming an earth-centered frame of reference are immensely more complicated as it breaks a general principle of science. When several ways of looking at the data are equally accurate at predicting the outcome, we choose the one that is the simplest. One consequence of this principle is the doctrine of uniformity, which states that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. That is, the laws of physics do not depend on where you are or when you are. With an earth-centered rule system, the rules have to change depending on where you are. For instance, the law of gravitational attraction would no longer be G*m1*m2/r^2 where the only factors are the two masses involved and the distance between them. The "new" law of gravitational attraction would have to change depending on where you are with respect to the earth. Gravity would not work the same around Alpha Centauri as it does around Sol. In short, science becomes useless. It is only in a very theoretical and philosophical sense that one can say the earth is stationary.

 

[El Cid]

Neither did Hawking as far as far as I know, but he was a stellar modern scientist. So you really cannot disqualify Aristotle as a scientist that way.

I didnt say that Aristotle wasnt a scientist, but he was not a modern experimental scientist. And neither was Hawking, he was a theoretical physicist, not an experimental physicist.

You failed to demonstrate that claim.

The Christian God created the universe as a separate entity from Himself, therefore establishing it as an objective reality. If you can name a non-Abrahamic religion that also teaches that, I am all ears.

Please try to make what you say clear. I happen to like clarity. It's part of my scientific thinking.

Are you scientist? If so, you should have understood me quite easily.

Which is opposition to science rooted in Christian faith!

No, there is scientific evidence against macroevolution, totally unrelated to Christian faith.

Creationists deny fossil evidence for evolution, so you are wrong here.

No, they just interpret the fossil evidence differently. The fossil record plainly shows systematic gaps between genera and families of organisms. Even evolutionists like Stephen Jay Gould basically admitted it when he came up with punctuated equilibrium theory.

I already corrected you on this issue.

I disagree. I refuted your correction with my information about Hawking.

But as a "free will mind" He can do whatever He chooses including making the world unpredictable and hence disorderly. So any apparent order in the cosmos cannot be said to be evidence for such a God. So your logic amounts to:

If A then B and if A then not B.

That's not valid logic.

Hardly, that is not my logic. If A (order), then B (an intelligent mind caused it). A has been confirmed by scientists to exist, therefore B (an intelligent creator mind exists).

 

[rossh]

Many people, including Christians, see Christianity as science's foe. Christianity is seen as based on faith while science is based on carnal unbelief which can destroy faith in Christ. Needless to say, many people criticize Christianity for its perceived opposition to science. But is Christianity really a foe to science? Most Christian apologists answer with a resounding no. They cite the many great scientists who have been Christians as evidence that Christianity poses no threat to legitimate science. In fact, apologists see the rise of modern science as to Christianity's credit.

But what do you Christians say about Christianity in relation to science? Do you like science and have interest in its discoveries? Is science good or bad in your estimation? Do any of you fear science and see it as a threat to your faith? Are any of you scientists or plan to become scientists?

Answers would be greatly appreciated!

well good question but, you will need to ask Science, I doubt if any Scientists are here.. ?

 

[LifeIn]

No, there is scientific evidence against macroevolution,..

That depends on what you call "evidence". There is vastly more supporting evidence for macroevolution than against it. In science, theories are proposed. These theories lead to predictions of things to come, or discoveries yet to be made. Then evidence is sought to confirm these predictions or deny them. In that sense, more evidence has been found to confirm the predictions of the theory of macroevolution, I am not aware of any evidence that directly contradicts and necessary consequence of macroevolution.

No, they just interpret the fossil evidence differently. The fossil record plainly shows systematic gaps between genera and families of organisms. Even evolutionists like Stephen Jay Gould basically admitted it when he came up with punctuated equilibrium theory.

The gaps in the fossil record suggest a hypothesis of special creation, but other than that suggestion of a hypothesis, no confirming evidence has been found to raise that status of that hypothesis to anything other than an unsupported guess, scientifically speaking.

 

[LifeIn]

well good question but, you will need to ask Science, I doubt if any Scientists are here.. ?

I am not a scientist by occupation, but I am a scientist and Christian by interest and orientation. And I agree that when properly understood, science and Christianity and not opposed, but are actually complementary. I have to add "when properly understood" because there are examples of misunderstanding both science and Christianity to where they seem to be in conflict. On the misunderstanding science side, I see instances where people draw from the science of Cosmology, conclusions about the creation of the universe that deny any intelligent deity had anything to do with creation. That is not science because science is supposed to be about theories that can be, in principle at least, tested - supported or falsified. Some of these theories of cosmology cannot be tested, ever. And are therefore not part of science. They may be more appropriate to the field of speculative fiction, like writing the next Marvel superhero script. On the misunderstanding Christianity side, some misinterpret Genesis as a literal science textbook rather than an account of the relationship between God and man.

 

[Gary Mac]

I am not a scientist by occupation, but I am a scientist and Christian by interest and orientation. And I agree that when properly understood, science and Christianity and not opposed, but are actually complementary. I have to add "when properly understood" because there are examples of misunderstanding both science and Christianity to where they seem to be in conflict. On the misunderstanding science side, I see instances where people draw from the science of Cosmology, conclusions about the creation of the universe that deny any intelligent deity had anything to do with creation. That is not science because science is supposed to be about theories that can be, in principle at least, tested - supported or falsified. Some of these theories of cosmology cannot be tested, ever. And are therefore not part of science. They may be more appropriate to the field of speculative fiction, like writing the next Marvel superhero script. On the misunderstanding Christianity side, some misinterpret Genesis as a literal science textbook rather than an account of the relationship between God and man.

Most do not understand that the first man was not created 6000 years ago, there is to much evidence that man has been here for hundreds of thousands of years in fossil records.

The real truth is that Adam was the first to meet God on His terms for Spirit and created Adam in Gods terms who is a spirit and made Adam in His same Spiritual image. That is the first when man actually met God and became like Him in Gen 3:22, Abraham, Moses, Jesus in Matt 3:16, 120 in an upper room all became like this same God that Adam was in His same image. BTW which is Spirit. Most dont have a clue what, or who, Gods Spirit is. They never met Him face to face as these did.

The truth is when you see Him as He really is, ye shall be like Him just as the first man Adam did. 1 John 3.

The first man Adam was of flesh, the second man Adam was of Spirit, Gen 3;22. It is the same with Jesus the first man Jesus was flesh, mad of a woman born under the law just as all men are. The second man Jesus was of Spirit, see Matt 3:16. This is what Adam received from God from the beginning of mans spiritual life.

Jesus referred to this new man in Gods same image as ye must be born again, born of the One who is a Spirit and not a man but resides in Man the temple of God.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

You have failed in this case because you have failed to understand not only Einstein but now Stephen Hawking as well.

I am quite the failure!

You failed to appreciate the significance of the last sentence you quoted, which I will quote again here:

...the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.

That looks easy enough to understand. I don't know where I went wrong.

The equations of motion assuming an earth-centered frame of reference are immensely more complicated as it breaks a general principle of science.

Yes. It's best to keep things simple if that's possible.

When several ways of looking at the data are equally accurate at predicting the outcome, we choose the one that is the simplest.

Generally that's a good idea.

One consequence of this principle is the doctrine of uniformity, which states that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.

I'm familiar with that principle.

That is, the laws of physics do not depend on where you are or when you are. With an earth-centered rule system, the rules have to change depending on where you are. For instance, the law of gravitational attraction would no longer be G*m1*m2/r^2 where the only factors are the two masses involved and the distance between them. The "new" law of gravitational attraction would have to change depending on where you are with respect to the earth. Gravity would not work the same around Alpha Centauri as it does around Sol. In short, science becomes useless. It is only in a very theoretical and philosophical sense that one can say the earth is stationary.

OK, but I think a simpler way to see that there is no "right" model when we compare geocentrism to heliocentrism is to just go with what Hawking and Mlodinow write about the issue in the quotation I posted above. Hawking and Mlodinow provide the correction to Theo's error.

 

[rossh]

I am not a scientist by occupation, but I am a scientist and Christian by interest and orientation. And I agree that when properly understood, science and Christianity and not opposed, but are actually complementary. I have to add "when properly understood" because there are examples of misunderstanding both science and Christianity to where they seem to be in conflict. On the misunderstanding science side, I see instances where people draw from the science of Cosmology, conclusions about the creation of the universe that deny any intelligent deity had anything to do with creation. That is not science because science is supposed to be about theories that can be, in principle at least, tested - supported or falsified. Some of these theories of cosmology cannot be tested, ever. And are therefore not part of science. They may be more appropriate to the field of speculative fiction, like writing the next Marvel superhero script. On the misunderstanding Christianity side, some misinterpret Genesis as a literal science textbook rather than an account of the relationship between God and man. We have to look at things this way. Moses penned the first 5 Books and was inspired by Gods Word and such, or he was visited by God Himself as only God can do! The timing was Gods as mankind had reached to a certain degree of education and understanding . It would have useless for God to try to teach the cavemen, right ?

However for some it is still too early for Gods Word to be understand even in todays time, sic!
Not bad,

I am quite the failure!
So when does the Sun ever work, so as to be at rest ? On you remark we do we DO UNDERSTAND !! and His Word IS UNDERSTOOD!

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I didnt say that Aristotle wasnt a scientist, but he was not a modern experimental scientist. And neither was Hawking, he was a theoretical physicist, not an experimental physicist.

That's right, so your trying to make the evidence fit your agenda doesn't work. You're trying to define science as what conforms to your religious beliefs.

The Christian God created the universe as a separate entity from Himself...

That's what Christian theologians and apologists tell us.

...therefore establishing it as an objective reality.

That doesn't help much considering how much people disagree as to what "reality" is.

If you can name a non-Abrahamic religion that also teaches that, I am all ears.

Why would I want to do that? Religions teach whatever they want people to believe.

Are you scientist?

Uh-uh--me no scientist.

If so, you should have understood me quite easily.

Either that or we're experiencing some communication difficulties.

No, there is scientific evidence against macroevolution, totally unrelated to Christian faith.

I don't think so. Many Christians fear that if evolution occurs, then there's no God for them. That's the real motivation for denying evolutionary theory. Here's the proof as we read in the Discovery Institute's "The Wedge Document."

GOALS​

Governing Goals

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

So there you go--the proof that any reasonable person would accept that contrary to what you say, the denial of macroevolution is based in Christian faith.

No, they just interpret the fossil evidence differently.

They sure do! We see above why they do so.

The fossil record plainly shows systematic gaps between genera and families of organisms.

We don't have all the fossils of all things that have lived on earth, of course. So how can you tell the difference between gaps that result from the lack of fossilization and gaps that result from an absence of transitional species?

Even evolutionists like Stephen Jay Gould basically admitted it when he came up with punctuated equilibrium theory.

His theory makes sense to me. What's wrong with it?

Hardly, that is not my logic. If A (order), then B (an intelligent mind caused it). A has been confirmed by scientists to exist, therefore B (an intelligent creator mind exists).

You're omitting what you posted earlier about intelligent minds creating disorder rather than order.

Anyway, your whole position here is essentially exposed as religion rather than science with the proof of your wedge document that I have documented on this post. Creationism is not science but religion.

 

[LifeIn]

OK, but I think a simpler way to see that there is no "right" model when we compare geocentrism to heliocentrism is to just go with what Hawking and Mlodinow write about the issue in the quotation I posted above. Hawking and Mlodinow provide the correction to Theo's error.

That's just an "appeal to authority" argument where the authority is not even being understood. There may not be a Platonically ideal "right" model, but there is a scientifically "right" model, and that would be the one that helps us make sense of the universe. The geocentric model may have served to make sense of one's home town, but it does not help one make sense of the earth, moon, sun, Venus, and Jupiter system. Without the sun-centered model, the only way to explain the apparent movement of all these things through the night sky would be to postulate that they are being pushed around by an invisible hand. And even that does not really help to make sense of the universe because that model does not predict where those objects will appear a year from now. The heliocentric model does do that. I should mention that strictly speaking, the heliocentric model does not assume that the sun is static. It assumes that the sun is almost static. That is, it is being pulled around a tiny bit by the gravity of the planets. That is why Theo said that they all rotate around the center of mass of the sun and all the planets. Since the sun is the most massive object in this system, the center of mass of the system is almost the same as the center of mass of the sun. So the sun is rotating around a point that is very near to the center of the sun itself. More of a wobble than a rotation. Geocentrism would not help in reaching that result.

 

[El Cid]

No, you quoted Jesus who is a first century rabbi whom historians know often used hyperbole. Most of the Bible is not a first century rabbi speaking. So most of the Bible is not hyperbole. The Bible is made up of many different forms of literature, to correctly understand the Bible or any text, you have to know what type of literature it is.

But it is neither fair nor honest to interpret the Bible in such a way as to force it to be in accord with your preconceived notion that it is inerrant.

I dont, it has proven itself to be inerrant.

Actually, there have been a few cases where a psychologist did think the person may have been possessed by a demon.

Maybe, but such a case of demonic possession has never been proved by science. The concept of demonic possession is based in the myth and folklore of primitive, superstitious, and prescientific people. To claim cases of demonic possession is not in accord with modern science.

There have been many things that have never been proven by science. Science has not proven that your wife loves you but you think she does.

Actually if the suspension of a natural law is done for a logical reason, then it is not disorder.

Then you cannot claim that natural law is evidence for God if He can suspend it at will! Here's your logic:

If God then order, and if God then disorder.

In some legal cases the judge or lawmakers have to suspend a law, but that doesnt prove that the judge or lawmakers dont exist.

As I stated above, more than 99.9% of the time God does not intervene supernaturally. In order for Him to destroy evil forever, the universe must be primarily based on natural law and have free will beings. Someone driving the other car may have freely chosen to drink and drive.

So God wants people to be able to get drunk and run people over while driving. Don't you see how ridiculous that is? I think it's sensible to disallow drunk driving because the freedom to drive drunk is less important than people's safety.

Here's your logic:

The freedom to do evil is more important than freedom from evil.

No, the freedom to do evil is necessary to destroy evil. Evil can only be destroyed by love, and in order to truly love God you have to freely choose to do so. God has said that the only way to destroy evil forever is to love and obey Him. That has to be done freely.

No, they usually occur as the result of natural laws unless the driver freely chooses to do something with their car.

Since auto accidents are for the most part unpredictable, I would define them as "disorder."

No, auto accidents dont violate the laws of physics.

Beginning in the mid 4th century the church leadership began to become corrupt because it became part of the government and started to withhold the Bible from the laity. So that they did not know that they could learn from nature about God. But around the Reformation when the protestants started getting the Bible out to the people then people became more interested in learning about nature and Gods creation. That is why the founders of modern science were primarily protestants.

So blame the Catholic Church for centuries of ignorance! Actually, if you knew your history of science, the Roman Catholic Church has made perhaps more scientific contributions to science than any other Christian sect.

They didnt invent the first modern scientific organization to systematically study nature. Protestants did, the Royal Society of London.

They were also right when they said that making the Bible available for anybody to read would lead to tremendous discord in the Church. The result of doing so has resulted in thousands of different sects all claiming to be "true."

Yes, but that separated the wheat from the chaff. And all churches that accept the infallible authority of the Bible agree on the essentials. And if the Reformation had not occurred, all the good things about Western civilization would not have occurred including the formation of the greatest nation on earth the USA.

Misinterpreting the Bible.

Is it safe to assume that you never misinterpret the Bible?

Not the essential teachings, they are obvious.

All that Darwin found was that animals adapt to the environment. That does not contradict anything in the Bible.

Where does the Bible mention evolution?

It doesnt. But Darwin never found evidence for macroevolution, only microevolution. His finches never turned into anything but finches with different beaks.

Where he contradicted the Bible is when he extrapolated that time could magically use those adaptations to create whole new organisms.

Sure, and that contradiction is supported by modern scientific evidence. Again, your Christian faith inspires you to oppose modern science.

No, macroevolution has never been empirically observed, it is just an unwarranted historical extrapolation of microevolution. He didnt know about genetic entropy, we now know that over time genes lose information so that major body structure changes are not unlimited.

And not all Christians went bonkers, some accepted his theory.

It was primarily Protestants who flipped out over evolutionary science. The Catholics decided to keep quiet because they already had a bad reputation for persecuting Galileo and Bruno.

The great botanist Asa Gray was a devout Presbyterian who eventually accepted evolution as Gods method to create living things. And he was a friend of Darwin and there were others.

The Bible does not say there is an ocean of liquid water in the sky. It just says "waters" which in the hebrew can mean any of the different forms of water but which we learn from His creation that in this case it is referring to water vapor.

To heck with what you say "Hebrew" means. I know what I've read in plain English.

Huh? That is the best way to understand ancient documents you have to read them in the original language. Not english translations.

But I do need to correct a misunderstanding I had about the firmament. It's not actually an ocean in the sky but a dome that holds up that ocean in the sky. In any case, the firmament is but one example of how the Bible gets science wrong.

It can also mean open space like the atmosphere. So that means the Bible is not wrong. Try again.

 

[rossh]

I dont, it has proven itself to be inerrant.

There have been many things that have never been proven by science. Science has not proven that your wife loves you but you think she does.

In some legal cases the judge or lawmakers have to suspend a law, but that doesnt prove that the judge or lawmakers dont exist.

No, the freedom to do evil is necessary to destroy evil. Evil can only be destroyed by love, and in order to truly love God you have to freely choose to do so. God has said that the only way to destroy evil forever is to love and obey Him. That has to be done freely.

No, auto accidents dont violate the laws of physics.

They didnt invent the first modern scientific organization to systematically study nature. Protestants did, the Royal Society of London.

Yes, but that separated the wheat from the chaff. And all churches that accept the infallible authority of the Bible agree on the essentials. And if the Reformation had not occurred, all the good things about Western civilization would not have occurred including the formation of the greatest nation on earth the USA.

Not the essential teachings, they are obvious.

It doesnt. But Darwin never found evidence for macroevolution, only microevolution. His finches never turned into anything but finches with different beaks.

No, macroevolution has never been empirically observed, it is just an unwarranted historical extrapolation of microevolution. He didnt know about genetic entropy, we now know that over time genes lose information so that major body structure changes are not unlimited.

The great botanist Asa Gray was a devout Presbyterian who eventually accepted evolution as Gods method to create living things. And he was a friend of Darwin and there were others.

Huh? That is the best way to understand ancient documents you have to read them in the original language. Not english translations.

It can also mean open space like the atmosphere. So that means the Bible is not wrong. Try again.

why do so many people assume that the Bible tries to be scientific ? Imagine Moses writting down Gods Word, about Lancaster Bombers and or Jump Jets for example ? again, God telling Moses how and what to do by a Heart transplant for example, both of which are very very REAL! ?

The reason the bible has come so far is God wisdom of how and what to put/write in it..
cheers.

 

[Gary Mac]

I dont, it has proven itself to be inerrant.

There have been many things that have never been proven by science. Science has not proven that your wife loves you but you think she does.

In some legal cases the judge or lawmakers have to suspend a law, but that doesnt prove that the judge or lawmakers dont exist.

No, the freedom to do evil is necessary to destroy evil. Evil can only be destroyed by love, and in order to truly love God you have to freely choose to do so. God has said that the only way to destroy evil forever is to love and obey Him. That has to be done freely.

No, auto accidents dont violate the laws of physics.

They didnt invent the first modern scientific organization to systematically study nature. Protestants did, the Royal Society of London.

Yes, but that separated the wheat from the chaff. And all churches that accept the infallible authority of the Bible agree on the essentials. And if the Reformation had not occurred, all the good things about Western civilization would not have occurred including the formation of the greatest nation on earth the USA.

Not the essential teachings, they are obvious.

It doesnt. But Darwin never found evidence for macroevolution, only microevolution. His finches never turned into anything but finches with different beaks.

No, macroevolution has never been empirically observed, it is just an unwarranted historical extrapolation of microevolution. He didnt know about genetic entropy, we now know that over time genes lose information so that major body structure changes are not unlimited.

The great botanist Asa Gray was a devout Presbyterian who eventually accepted evolution as Gods method to create living things. And he was a friend of Darwin and there were others.

Huh? That is the best way to understand ancient documents you have to read them in the original language. Not english translations.

It can also mean open space like the atmosphere. So that means the Bible is not wrong. Try again.

All the Bible is is mans testimonies with their dealings with God. The Bible is not a historical document, it is a religious document compiled by mans own experiences and they all had different experiences with or about a God.

The only one I trust is what was quoted of Jesus, the rest are mans own ideas just as they are today. All have a testimony about a God and if it isn't the very same as Jesus received in Matt 3:16 then You are no different from any writers of the book.

For instance lets look at Pauls account. Paul teaches that I am a sinner. Jesus teaches that I am the righteousness of God in Christ and cannot sin because I am born of God. 1 John 3. Perfect even as my Father God in heaven is perfect and I am the temple of God, He in me and I in Him are one see Jesus prayer to our God for me to be in John 17.

If you took out everything in the Bible except that what was quoted of Jesus you would have a completely different outlook on who Jesus was, Who God is and who Christ is. But because people listen to others instead of Jesus, you go without with what Jesus taught to be like Him, have the mind of Christ, walk as He walks in His same light with the same signs following you.

Do you know why the majority claiming to be of Christ do not have His same mind and do not walk as He walks in His same light as Jesus did with the same signs following? You follow the advice of mans own belief systems instead of the way of God in Christ to be His anointed one. Christ in you just as He was in Jesus starting in Matt 3:16 is when Jesus became anointed of God.

Read it then you can call it antichrist lies as you do in nearly every post.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

That's just an "appeal to authority" argument...

I've studied logic. My appeal to authority is logically valid. More on this matter later.

...where the authority is not even being understood.

Maybe you don't understand what Hawking and Mlodinow wrote, but to me it is perfectly clear. There is no "right" way to determine what celestial body orbits some other celestial body. It all depends on the viewer's frame of reference which is the point Hawking and Mlodinow are making.

There may not be a Platonically ideal "right" model, but there is a scientifically "right" model, and that would be the one that helps us make sense of the universe. The geocentric model may have served to make sense of one's home town, but it does not help one make sense of the earth, moon, sun, Venus, and Jupiter system. Without the sun-centered model...

I do hope you aren't saying that the cosmos is absolutely centered on the sun!

...the only way to explain the apparent movement of all these things through the night sky would be to postulate that they are being pushed around by an invisible hand. And even that does not really help to make sense of the universe because that model does not predict where those objects will appear a year from now. The heliocentric model does do that. I should mention that strictly speaking, the heliocentric model does not assume that the sun is static. It assumes that the sun is almost static. That is, it is being pulled around a tiny bit by the gravity of the planets. That is why Theo said that they all rotate around the center of mass of the sun and all the planets.

Where did your fellow Christian apologist Theo say that?

Since the sun is the most massive object in this system, the center of mass of the system is almost the same as the center of mass of the sun. So the sun is rotating around a point that is very near to the center of the sun itself. More of a wobble than a rotation.

Wait a minute--didn't you start out by implying that appeals to authority are illogical (which as I have explained is not always the case)? You then proceed to imply that I should accept what you are posting which is an appeal to authority! That's contradictory.

Anyway, we all appeal to authority as we base what we think is right on presumed experts like doctors, lawyers, teachers, and stock brokers. None of us are experts on every issue--not even I am--so it is often necessary to rely on what somebody else has to say. Regarding astrophysics, I do not have a degree in that discipline. That's why I appealed to Hawking and Mlodinow for the lowdown on two competing cosmological models--geocentrism and heliocentrism. Those two scientists are well-known, prominent scientists and what they have to say about astrophysics is probably correct. You, on the other hand, are some anonymous person posting claims on an internet forum. Logically, I will accept what Hawking and Mlodinow have to say and take what you have to say with a grain of salt.

Geocentrism would not help in reaching that result.

The mistake you're making here is to consider that the earth is the actual, absolute center of the universe and then argue why it cannot be. That's the very opposite of what I'm arguing because I'm saying that since there is no absolute "center of the cosmos," then what is that center is relative to the perspective of the observer.

 

[rossh]

I've studied logic. My appeal to authority is logically valid. More on this matter later.

Maybe you don't understand what Hawking and Mlodinow wrote, but to me it is perfectly clear. There is no "right" way to determine what celestial body orbits some other celestial body. It all depends on the viewer's frame of reference which is the point Hawking and Mlodinow are making.

I do hope you aren't saying that the cosmos is absolutely centered on the sun!

Where did your fellow Christian apologist Theo say that?

Wait a minute--didn't you start out by implying that appeals to authority are illogical (which as I have explained is not always the case)? You then proceed to imply that I should accept what you are posting which is an appeal to authority! That's contradictory.

Anyway, we all appeal to authority as we base what we think is right on presumed experts like doctors, lawyers, teachers, and stock brokers. None of us are experts on every issue--not even I am--so it is often necessary to rely on what somebody else has to say. Regarding astrophysics, I do not have a degree in that discipline. That's why I appealed to Hawking and Mlodinow for the lowdown on two competing cosmological models--geocentrism and heliocentrism. Those two scientists are well-known, prominent scientists and what they have to say about astrophysics is probably correct. You, on the other hand, are some anonymous person posting claims on an internet forum. Logically, I will accept what Hawking and Mlodinow have to say and take what you have to say with a grain of salt.

The mistake you're making here is to consider that the earth is the actual, absolute center of the universe and then argue why it cannot be. That's the very opposite of what I'm arguing because I'm saying that since there is no absolute "center of the cosmos," then what is that center is relative to the perspective of the observer.

The Earth is certainly the so called center of the universe even though is it unable to be measured and such, not knowing where the start and or the end may be ?
I have found it very easy and profitable to just simple read and re-read Scripture and BELIEVE Scripture as God Infallible Word.. also a prayer for help and an assist now and then seems to be comforting.