Christianity: Friend or foe to science?

Status
Not open for further replies.
What is your problem with Lennox's claim that modern science was started by Christians because they expected to find natural laws because the Creator was the lawgiver?
Oh I agree that much of modern science was started by some people who happened to be Christians who were inspired by their faith to study science. Charles Darwin is among them. Lennox's fallacy is to then conclude that Christianity made modern science possible. There's no good evidence for that. Did Jesus preach science? Of course not. All you need to do is check a good source about the history of science. Few if any historians of science will credit Christianity for the rise of science.
Please leave out earlier groups like the Hellenistic Greeks and the hominids that did not that use the scientific method.
So you're telling me to leave out evidence for my position. I think you need me to.
 
I understand science as the effort to gather evidence and form logical conclusions based on that evidence. If this effort were to come to the conclusion that life after death is impossible....

But "science" has concluded no such thing - it can't, it's not a person who can reason and judge - I told you to be careful with reifying "science"

"this effort" is the scientists (not science) who conclude - the scientists who have all sorts of prior assumptions that need justifying, again; that is the contention - not science.
 
I understand science as the effort to gather evidence and form logical conclusions based on that evidence. If this effort were to come to the conclusion that life after death is impossible....
But "science" has concluded no such thing - it can't, it's not a person who can reason and judge - I told you to be careful with reifying "science"
Yes--I know that. You're taking what I said too literally. When I say "science" I mean what experts say about the world along with the reasoning and evidence they present. Science understood this way definitely can and does reach conclusions.
"this effort" is the scientists (not science) who conclude - the scientists who have all sorts of prior assumptions that need justifying, again; that is the contention - not science.
Scientists, being human, do have predispositions that can skew their reasoning. That's why scientific research involves double-blind testing, repeated testing, and peer review to eliminate the effects of bias. So what you're pointing out here is a well-known problem that is remedied.
 
actually man had dominion over the animals and was not one of them, whereas
the current hominid is an animal body.

Because of Adam's disobedience a corruption of (our) reality entered the picture. It was not
merely a psychological consequence but cosmological effects occurred... For one we left
our land. And, we are now mortal, in a foreign land where men sweat and toil,
and females suffer pain in childbirth.
And all that over a fruit snack.
 
And all that over a fruit snack.
it was not a fruit snack.

the fruit was of the satanic realm adam touched, entered and cooperated with.

the tree is a cosmological construct, look up torus as an object of cosmology and physics.

it represents a realm and its energies foreign to God, satanic...
and adam was not to eat of it.

we are imprisoned in that realm of the tree of good and evil and its type of physicality = sin nature.

that foreign realm is the current reality we live in, discussed in this thread...
 
God left truth deniers a long time ago. Some Christians understand evolution is true. you can sort out which group you belong to.
You cannot claim to be a Christian (Follow the standard of Christ) and believe in evolution, because Christ Himself taught creationism and not evolution.

You are almost right however in your statement that God "left" truth deniers...
God is Sovereign and reveals truth to those who believe. He leaves truth deniers to their own folly.

Mar_13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be.
Mat_19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

Heb_11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Rev_4:11 “Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”
 
You cannot claim to be a Christian (Follow the standard of Christ) and believe in evolution, because Christ Himself taught creationism and not evolution.

You are almost right however in your statement that God "left" truth deniers...
God is Sovereign and reveals truth to those who believe. He leaves truth deniers to their own folly.

Mar_13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be.
Mat_19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

Heb_11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Rev_4:11 “Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”
No where in those verses is evolution precluded as a mechanism for creation. According to your infantile logic DNA is not a mechanism in creation because Jesus never mentioned it. You might as well condemn anyone who agrees with science about DNA.
 
No where in those verses is evolution precluded as a mechanism for creation. According to your infantile logic DNA is not a mechanism in creation because Jesus never mentioned it. You might as well condemn anyone who agrees with science about DNA.

The existence of DNA doesn't "prove" evolution.

These are the cheap and dishonest tactics that evolutionists need to play.
They can't prove evolution, so if anyone doesn't accept it, they falsely accuse them not believing a valid scientific fact unrelated to evolution.
 
Scientists, being human, do have predispositions that can skew their reasoning. That's why scientific research involves double-blind testing, repeated testing, and peer review to eliminate the effects of bias. So what you're pointing out here is a well-known problem that is remedied.

Where is the "repeated testing" demonstrating the controlled laboratory evolution from one species to another different species?
 
No where in those verses is evolution precluded as a mechanism for creation. According to your infantile logic DNA is not a mechanism in creation because Jesus never mentioned it. You might as well condemn anyone who agrees with science about DNA.
Stop the immature ad-hom by saying my logic is infantile

You think Jesus did not believe the Genesis account of creation? You think He could not have told His disciples that the world was not created by God but rather through a natural process.
 
Then why are you pestering me...
I just respond to what you say to me. That's not pestering you although I can understand why you find my responses troublesome.
...since I'm not in any "debate"?!
I wouldn't recommend you debate anybody.
Why do you bullies constantly try to force people to argue with you?
Hmmm. I see you feel persecuted when anybody disagrees with you.
You have yet to offer any "evidence that disproves [my] position".
What evidence would convince you that biological evolution occurs?
Why should I?
You mentioned that you would critique the Nova documentary on the Dover trial. Did you decide to back out of that effort?
If you actually think that wearing a mouse trap for a tie clip is going to be advantageous for advancing the species, then frankly there's no hope for you.
If I understand correctly, the "mousetrap tie clip" featured in the Nova documentary was meant to show that things can have more than one purpose. So we see that often the parts of living things have different purposes as those organisms evolve which is predicted by The Theory of Evolution.
No thank you.
I dislike being bossed around by bullies.
This is so strange--you say you're going to do something, and when I tell you to go ahead, then you complain and insult me calling me a bully.
<sigh>
1) Go to Google.
2) Search "best books on Intelligent design"
3) Go to Amazon to check out the ratings. Keep in mind that anything about ID and evolution willi have an inordinate amount of 1-star and 5-star reviews, and evaluate accordingly.
4) Fill your cart.
But you recommended I read a book by an ID author. I just want to know which book you have in mind.
 
I just respond to what you say to me. That's not pestering you although I can understand why you find my responses troublesome.

I wouldn't recommend you debate anybody.

Hmmm. I see you feel persecuted when anybody disagrees with you.

What evidence would convince you that biological evolution occurs?

You mentioned that you would critique the Nova documentary on the Dover trial. Did you decide to back out of that effort?

If I understand correctly, the "mousetrap tie clip" featured in the Nova documentary was meant to show that things can have more than one purpose. So we see that often the parts of living things have different purposes as those organisms evolve which is predicted by The Theory of Evolution.

This is so strange--you say you're going to do something, and when I tell you to go ahead, then you complain and insult me calling me a bully.

But you recommended I read a book by an ID author. I just want to know which book you have in mind.
If so many religious people can be so wrong about evolution it makes me realize how powerful the God of this world is to blind even those absolutely convinced God is on their side. It is a sobering realization how much power he really has to fool people into believing an error.

I mean, if the church can be fooled, the church who claim to follow the Prince of truth deceived, then what hope does the rest of the world have? For example, atheists, agnostics, undecided, etc.
 
Last edited:
Where is the "repeated testing" demonstrating the controlled laboratory evolution from one species to another different species?
I am so glad you asked. After a very quick and easy Google search, I found the article Evidence for speciation. It tells us:
Experimental results: The first steps of speciation have been produced in several laboratory experiments involving “geographic” isolation. For example, Diane Dodd examined the effects of geographic isolation and selection on fruit flies. She took fruit flies from a single population and divided them into separate populations living in different cages to simulate geographic isolation. Half of the populations lived on maltose-based food, and the other populations lived on starch-based foods. After many generations, the flies were tested to see which flies they preferred to mate with. Dodd found that some reproductive isolation had occurred as a result of the geographic isolation and selection for different food sources in the two environments: “maltose flies” preferred other “maltose flies,” and “starch flies” preferred other “starch flies.” Although, we can’t be sure, these preference differences probably existed because selection for using different food sources also affected certain genes involved in reproductive behavior. This is the sort of result we’d expect, if allopatric speciation were a typical mode of speciation.
There you go--you now know that testing has successfully demonstrated evolution. It's odd that you just didn't look it up yourself.
 
I am so glad you asked.

I see you're still pestering me.
I already told you that I'm not interested in any "debate" with you.
Why are you so obsessed with me?

From your link:

"Although, we can’t be sure, these preference differences probably existed because selection for using different food sources also affected certain genes involved in reproductive behavior. This is the sort of result we’d expect, if allopatric speciation were a typical mode of speciation."
"Diane Dodd’s fruit fly experiment
suggests that isolating populations in different environments (e.g., with different food sources) can lead to the beginning of reproductive isolation. These results are consistent with the idea that geographic isolation is an important step of some speciation events."

All you have shown me is speculation and assumption, which is why evolution is worthless pseudoscience. Both groups are still moths, so there is no "speciation" here. And just because I don't want to mate with a vegan doesn't mean I'm a different "species" than vegans.

After a very quick and easy Google search, I found the article Evidence for speciation. It tells us:

Did you even bother to READ it?!

There you go--you now know that testing has successfully demonstrated evolution.

No, I still DON'T know, since the experiment didn't demonstrate any such thing.
Now if you want to believe in your little fairy tale, I won't get in your way. But please stop pestering me with your worthless pseudoscience.

It's odd that you just didn't look it up yourself.

Yes, I made good use of my time rather than wasting it looking up nonsense pseudoscience.
 
I am so glad you asked. After a very quick and easy Google search, I found the article Evidence for speciation. It tells us:

Okay, let's see how (real) science would respond to this:

1) Did she cross a maltose moth with a starch moth (both combinations), to see if they were able to mate and produce fertile young? (I'm guessing not.)

2) Did they analyze the genome to see if any new alleles were formed that never existed before? (I'm guessing not.)

3) Did they do a "double blind" study to study the genetics of these moths to see if examiners could identify the "type" of moth simply on the genetics? (I'm guessing not.)

This is what TRUE scientist would do, since scientists with integrity try to disprove their theories, so that only those hypotheses which can survive unscathed are deemed reliable enough to hold as true.
 
Last edited:
If so many religious people can be so wrong about evolution it makes me realize how powerful the God of this world is to blind even those absolutely convinced God is on their side. It is a sobering realization how much power he really has to fool people into believing an error.
It sure looks that way. The Devil wants to make God out to be either a buffoon or a scammer. Denying that evolution occurs when it does occur and doing so in God's name can make a lot of atheists.
I mean, if the church can be fooled, the church who claim to follow the Prince of truth deceived, then what hope does the rest of the world have? For example, atheists, agnostics, undecided, etc.
Much of the rest of the world has sound science available to it while here in America we fight scientific theories that upset us.
 
Did the Hellenistic Greeks conduct experiments?
They must have since many of them were scientists.
The greeks did not conduct experiments because they believed that only slaves got their hands dirty. They were good at observational science. But only Christians invented modern experimental science.
How did they test their hypotheses?
You should Google it if you're really interested. Right off the top of my head I know that many Hellenistic Greeks were great mathematicians and inventors. Heron, for example, (the Greek man--not the bird) invented steam power.
See above. There were a few greek inventors but they never engaged in an ongoing systematic experimental study of nature and the universe for the reason above and also since the greek gods would just randomly change form they saw no rational basis for science to be conducted. This was started by Christians because the Christian God was a logical and orderly God who created the laws of nature because He was a lawgiver.
Taking a stick to defend yourself is something that anyone would do in self defense. I'm not sure how scientific sharpening a stick in preparation for another attack might be.
My example illustrates how people being resourceful is the basis for science.
Yes, but that is not modern science.
 
The greeks did not conduct experiments because they believed that only slaves got their hands dirty. They were good at observational science. But only Christians invented modern experimental science.
Actually, one of the greatest experiments in the history of science was performed by the Greek polymath, Eratosthenes. He is perhaps best known for his experiment using rods and the angles of their shadows to infer the circumference of the earth. From Wikipedia:
The simplified method works by considering two cities along the same meridian and measuring both the distance between them and the difference in angles of the shadows cast by the sun on a vertical rod (a gnomon) in each city at noon on the summer solstice. The two cities used were Alexandria and Syene (modern Aswan), and the distance between the cities was measured by professional bematists.[16] A geometric calculation reveals that the circumference of the Earth is the distance between the two cities divided by the difference in shadow angles expressed as a fraction of one turn.
He performed this amazing experiment over two centuries before Christianity came along.
See above. There were a few greek inventors...
Did you know that the Hellenistic Greeks invented the first known computer?
but they never engaged in an ongoing systematic experimental study of nature and the universe for the reason above and also since the greek gods would just randomly change form they saw no rational basis for science to be conducted.
Can you cite your source for this claim? It doesn't look right to me.
This was started by Christians because the Christian God was a logical and orderly God who created the laws of nature because He was a lawgiver.
Why would Christians bother with science when Christ preached that the world was soon to end? You evidently are ignoring ROMANS 11:33 which clearly states:
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
So what's logical or orderly about that?
Yes, but that is not modern science.
You should define what you mean by "modern science." Surely you don't rule out the role of resourcefulness in any science modern or otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top