Christianity: Friend or foe to science?

Unknown Soldier

Active member
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.
Actually any trained scientist knows that science is based on inductive arguments. Since you evidently aren't familiar with that concept allow me to explain that an inductive argument is an argument based on a probability less than 1. Rarely if ever is any scientific argument 100 percent sure (in that case it would be a deductive argument). So the fact that the experiment in the link doesn't prove speciation, it strongly indicates that speciation occurs. And as any reasonable person knows, a high probability is good enough to establish knowledge.
Both groups are still moths, so there is no "speciation" here.
You should be aware that there are many species of moths, and what you choose to call those species does not disprove their evolution.
And just because I don't want to mate with a vegan doesn't mean I'm a different "species" than vegans.
Vegans can be glad for that! But as any good biologist knows, sexual attraction among a group of organisms is one of the defining properties of a species.
Did you even bother to READ it?!
I just read the part that demonstrates speciation. Do you seriously think that an article that documents speciation would say something that refutes its own premise?
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.
What evidence would you accept that evolution occurs?
Yes, I made good use of my time rather than wasting it looking up nonsense pseudoscience.
If I was afraid something is true, then I suppose I wouldn't look it up either.
 

Unknown Soldier

Active member
And all that over a fruit snack.
it was not a fruit snack.
Call it what you wish. Scripture tells us that Eve and later Adam at some fruit, and as a result God condemned all of us to lives of hardship that end in death. Does that punishment fit the crime? Darwin's theory makes much better sense in that nature does not guarantee any of us happiness, safety, or security. We live to try to pass down our genes to offspring.
the fruit was of the satanic realm adam touched, entered and cooperated with.
Actually, the fruit belonged to God.
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...
So the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a mere metaphor?
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
Call it what you wish. Scripture tells us that Eve and later Adam at some fruit, and as a result God condemned all of us to lives of hardship that end in death. Does that punishment fit the crime? Darwin's theory makes much better sense in that nature does not guarantee any of us happiness, safety, or security. We live to try to pass down our genes to offspring.

Actually, the fruit belonged to God.

So the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a mere metaphor?
Absolutely it is a metaphor. Everything in the book is a metaphor for who you are supposed to be like the Father of it and walk as He walks in His same light.

the Bible is only an instruction manual, tutorial, for how to with examples as the tutorial instructs to be like the God it is about and be in His same image. Jesus was prime example for that metaphor that you are supposed to be like.
 

e v e 21

Well-known member
Call it what you wish. Scripture tells us that Eve and later Adam at some fruit, and as a result God condemned all of us to lives of hardship that end in death. Does that punishment fit the crime? Darwin's theory makes much better sense in that nature does not guarantee any of us happiness, safety, or security. We live to try to pass down our genes to offspring.

Actually, the fruit belonged to God.

So the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a mere metaphor?
so you did not read my post
and you follow esau's corrupt bible...

and ?
 

Unknown Soldier

Active member
So the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a mere metaphor?
Absolutely it is a metaphor.
So there was no actual tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Everything in the book is a metaphor...
Which book?
...for who you are supposed to be like the Father of it...
Father of what?
...and walk as He walks in His same light.
Is it correct to conclude that you are referring here to the injunctions laid down by Jesus in the Gospels?
...the Bible is only an instruction manual, tutorial, for how to with examples as the tutorial instructs to be like the God it is about and be in His same image.
But the Bible also provides other kinds of information like the nature of God and hell.
Jesus was prime example for that metaphor that you are supposed to be like.
Are you saying that the tree of the knowledge of good and is a metaphor for Jesus?
 

El Cid

Well-known member
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.
I didnt say NO greeks did experiments but they did not develop the experimental method that became the foundation of the institution of modern science. Because their worldview was not conducive to it. They didnt believe in natural laws or even an objective reality. Because the greek gods were capricious and could and did change forms at will so that you could never know if a dog was really a dog or was it a god in the form of a dog. But the Christian God is a god of order and law. The Bible says that He created the natural laws so that experimental science could be repeatable.
See above. There were a few greek inventors...
Did you know that the Hellenistic Greeks invented the first known computer?
See above.
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.
Even the famous atheist historian Loren Eisely admits "It is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself."
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?
By the 16th century they decided that since nobody knows when He would return they might as well learn more about Him from nature, just as He taught in the Bible "Consider the lilies......." Plus all the references in the Psalms about "Consider the heavens..." And "The heavens declare the Glory of God...."

US: 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?
He is talking about how we can never learn everything about God. It has nothing to do with God being orderly or not. But there are verses where it does say He is orderly and logic (logos) Himself in John 1.
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.
See above. Modern science is the systematic and experimental self correcting study of nature.
 

Unknown Soldier

Active member
I didnt say NO greeks did experiments but they did not develop the experimental method that became the foundation of the institution of modern science.
If some Greeks performed scientific experiments, then you can't credit Christianity for developing scientific experimentation! You're making a hand-waving argument here dismissing proof of very important Greek experiments as trivial.
Because their worldview was not conducive to it. They didnt believe in natural laws or even an objective reality.
Malarkey! Natural law was initially defined by ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato.

Where are you getting this nonsense?
Because the greek gods were capricious and could and did change forms at will so that you could never know if a dog was really a dog or was it a god in the form of a dog. But the Christian God is a god of order and law. The Bible says that He created the natural laws so that experimental science could be repeatable.
Please cite that source.
Even the famous atheist historian Loren Eisely admits "It is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself."
OK, that's one person's point of view. Why should anybody agree with Loren Eisely? As is so typical of apologists, you rely heavily on appeals to authority seeking somebody who agrees with your position and quoting that person while ignoring what other presumed experts have to say. If you want to play that game, then I can quote people who agree with me. How about something from Andrew Dickson White?
By the 16th century they decided that since nobody knows when He would return they might as well learn more about Him from nature, just as He taught in the Bible "Consider the lilies......." Plus all the references in the Psalms about "Consider the heavens..." And "The heavens declare the Glory of God...."
So that's the Bible science you believe in? "Consider the lilies"? Where does the Bible say that we should test anything and drop it if it fails the test?
US: You evidently are ignoring ROMANS 11:33 which clearly states:

He is talking about how we can never learn everything about God. It has nothing to do with God being orderly or not. But there are verses where it does say He is orderly and logic (logos) Himself in John 1.
To arbitrarily assert that we cannot know something is in opposition to science--not in favor to science.
Modern science is the systematic and experimental self correcting study of nature.
That's one definition, and I'm left wondering if Jesus ever said we can correct Him if we find something He said is wrong.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
So there was no actual tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Not a physical one. When are people going to learn that the kingdom of God is Spirit, or mind the Spirit is called. When are people going to learn that the kingdom of God dosnt come with observation but is within you? Luke 17:21-22

Very few people actually follow Jesus in his doctrine. A tree is physical but knowledge is spiritual.
Which book?
The one you call a bible.
Father of what?
My Spirit which simply is Love for my God is Love and I have His same mind.
Is it correct to conclude that you are referring here to the injunctions laid down by Jesus in the Gospels?
Absolutely.
But the Bible also provides other kinds of information like the nature of God and hell.
Yes it is an instruction manual on how to receive the nature of God as your own nature, have the mind of Christ, walk as He walks in His same light just as Jesus and others we read of did. That is all that the Bible is is a tutorial on how to.
Are you saying that the tree of the knowledge of good and is a metaphor for Jesus?
Absolutely. In Matt 3:16 Jesus received the same knowledge from God as Adam did in Gen 3:22.

You are calculation without God. Your calculations are your own inventions and speculations spawned by beliefs instead of letting God Himself do the calculations in you.

My God says be as I am. Your God it be what you tell him to be. You cant know that what you have not received from God Himself.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
But if your logic is wrong, and if somebody points that out to you, then it's wise accept the correction.
Your opinion about wether or not my logic is infantile is worth nothing.
I agree that insulting you is wrong, but your logic is fair game. Personally, I'd rather have my reasoning corrected than to go on making fallacies.
So Jesus quoting Genesis is a fallacy in your logic.
People need to grow up and start having mature conversations
 

El Cid

Well-known member
I didnt say NO greeks did experiments but they did not develop the experimental method that became the foundation of the institution of modern science.
If some Greeks performed scientific experiments, then you can't credit Christianity for developing scientific experimentation! You're making a hand-waving argument here dismissing proof of very important Greek experiments as trivial.
Because Christians created an entire organization in which scientific experimentation could be monitored and tested and shared to others around the world. It was called the Royal Society of London. The greeks never even came close to such an organization. This was the beginning of modern science.
Because their worldview was not conducive to it. They didnt believe in natural laws or even an objective reality.
Malarkey! Natural law was initially defined by ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato.

Where are you getting this nonsense?
A few great philosophers figured it out, but only in Christian societies did it spread to all people in the society and help generate interest in science in the first modern universities that Christians founded. Greek society as whole believed in a chaotic universe controlled by capricious and irrational humanlike gods.
Because the greek gods were capricious and could and did change forms at will so that you could never know if a dog was really a dog or was it a god in the form of a dog. But the Christian God is a god of order and law. The Bible says that He created the natural laws so that experimental science could be repeatable.
Please cite that source.
Jeremiah 33:35.
Even the famous atheist historian Loren Eisely admits "It is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself."
OK, that's one person's point of view. Why should anybody agree with Loren Eisely? As is so typical of apologists, you rely heavily on appeals to authority seeking somebody who agrees with your position and quoting that person while ignoring what other presumed experts have to say. If you want to play that game, then I can quote people who agree with me. How about something from Andrew Dickson White?
He is not the only one most modern historians of science agree it was founded by Christians. Look up historians Rodney Stark and James Hannam. White was from the 19th century. You will need to better than that.
By the 16th century they decided that since nobody knows when He would return they might as well learn more about Him from nature, just as He taught in the Bible "Consider the lilies......." Plus all the references in the Psalms about "Consider the heavens..." And "The heavens declare the Glory of God...."
So that's the Bible science you believe in? "Consider the lilies"? Where does the Bible say that we should test anything and drop it if it fails the test?
If the heavens declare the Glory of God, you are going to want to study those heavens, right? I Thessalonians 5:21.
US: You evidently are ignoring ROMANS 11:33 which clearly states:

He is talking about how we can never learn everything about God. It has nothing to do with God being orderly or not. But there are verses where it does say He is orderly and logic (logos) Himself in John 1.
To arbitrarily assert that we cannot know something is in opposition to science--not in favor to science.
To not be able to fully know an infinite being makes perfect logical and scientific sense.
Modern science is the systematic and experimental self correcting study of nature.
That's one definition, and I'm left wondering if Jesus ever said we can correct Him if we find something He said is wrong.
We are free to try.
 

Unknown Soldier

Active member
Because Christians created an entire organization in which scientific experimentation could be monitored and tested and shared to others around the world. It was called the Royal Society of London. The greeks never even came close to such an organization.
What you're saying here is not only just a matter of opinion but is irrelevant to who was doing science first; we're not discussing the quality of a culture's science but it's history. It was clearly many cultures that predated Christianity including the Greeks who practiced science.
This was the beginning of modern science.
Sure, if you choose to define "modern science" as what Christians did that other cultures did not do.
A few great philosophers figured it out, but only in Christian societies did it spread to all people in the society and help generate interest in science in the first modern universities that Christians founded. Greek society as whole believed in a chaotic universe controlled by capricious and irrational humanlike gods.
You're moving the goalposts here. You claimed that the Greeks didn't believe in natural laws, and I proved you wrong by noting that the Greeks invented the concept of natural law.

When you make an error like that, the honest thing to do is admit it.
Jeremiah 33:35.
There is no such passage. Besides, it's not good practice to just splash a citation on your post without commenting on why you are citing it.
He is not the only one most modern historians of science agree it was founded by Christians. Look up historians Rodney Stark and James Hannam. White was from the 19th century. You will need to better than that.
Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about the role of Christianity in the history of science:
Christianity was also steadily expanding during this time and soon became a major patron of education in the Latin West. Initially, the Christian church adopted some of the reasoning tools of Greek philosophy in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE to defend its faith against sophisticated opponents.[110] Nevertheless, Greek philosophy received a mixed reception from leaders and adherents of the Christian faith.[110] Some such as Tertullian (c. 155-c. 230 CE) were vehemently opposed to philosophy, denouncing it as heretic. Others such as Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE) were ambivalent and defended Greek philosophy and science as the best ways to understand the natural world and therefore treated it as a handmaiden (or servant) of religion.
And that's about all it says! Note that even in this short reference we see that the science adopted by Christianity has its roots in Hellenistic Greece.
If the heavens declare the Glory of God, you are going to want to study those heavens, right? I Thessalonians 5:21.
I suppose people will study the heavens regardless of what they imagine the heavens declare. If you know the history of science, then you know that all civilizations have studied celestial bodies to reckon time.
To not be able to fully know an infinite being makes perfect logical and scientific sense.
Not really. I can know infinite sets of numbers easily enough. Besides, what science tells us that a being is infinite? That's religion, not science.
We are free to try.
Just read Matthew 23. Jesus didn't earn a reputation there for accepting differing points of view--one of the most important practices in science.
 

El Cid

Well-known member
Because Christians created an entire organization in which scientific experimentation could be monitored and tested and shared to others around the world. It was called the Royal Society of London. The greeks never even came close to such an organization.
What you're saying here is not only just a matter of opinion but is irrelevant to who was doing science first; we're not discussing the quality of a culture's science but it's history. It was clearly many cultures that predated Christianity including the Greeks who practiced science.
No, we are discussing who invented modern science. The Greeks may have invented science, but not modern science. You do know there is a difference right?
This was the beginning of modern science.
Sure, if you choose to define "modern science" as what Christians did that other cultures did not do.
Yes, only Christians came up with an ongoing, self correcting, systematic study of nature. Which is what modern science is.
A few great philosophers figured it out, but only in Christian societies did it spread to all people in the society and help generate interest in science in the first modern universities that Christians founded. Greek society as whole believed in a chaotic universe controlled by capricious and irrational humanlike gods.
You're moving the goalposts here. You claimed that the Greeks didn't believe in natural laws, and I proved you wrong by noting that the Greeks invented the concept of natural law.

When you make an error like that, the honest thing to do is admit it.
I said a few really smart Greeks did, but not Greek society as a whole. That is why they were not able to set up the foundations of modern science.
Jeremiah 33:35.
There is no such passage. Besides, it's not good practice to just splash a citation on your post without commenting on why you are citing it.
Sorry, I had the wrong verse. It should be 33:20. You said you wanted to know where the Bible teaches the existence of natural laws.
He is not the only one most modern historians of science agree it was founded by Christians. Look up historians Rodney Stark and James Hannam. White was from the 19th century. You will need to better than that.
Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about the role of Christianity in the history of science:
Christianity was also steadily expanding during this time and soon became a major patron of education in the Latin West. Initially, the Christian church adopted some of the reasoning tools of Greek philosophy in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE to defend its faith against sophisticated opponents.[110] Nevertheless, Greek philosophy received a mixed reception from leaders and adherents of the Christian faith.[110] Some such as Tertullian (c. 155-c. 230 CE) were vehemently opposed to philosophy, denouncing it as heretic. Others such as Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE) were ambivalent and defended Greek philosophy and science as the best ways to understand the natural world and therefore treated it as a handmaiden (or servant) of religion.
And that's about all it says! Note that even in this short reference we see that the science adopted by Christianity has its roots in Hellenistic Greece.
Almost all the scientists mentioned in this article were Christians. https://www.britannica.com/science/history-of-science/Science-and-the-Industrial-Revolution
If the heavens declare the Glory of God, you are going to want to study those heavens, right? I Thessalonians 5:21.
I suppose people will study the heavens regardless of what they imagine the heavens declare. If you know the history of science, then you know that all civilizations have studied celestial bodies to reckon time.
Yes, but not to discover what those celestial bodies are and where they are and how they move. And test their predictions about these things. Only Christians did this.
To not be able to fully know an infinite being makes perfect logical and scientific sense.
Not really. I can know infinite sets of numbers easily enough. Besides, what science tells us that a being is infinite? That's religion, not science.
Really? You must be omniscient! But you are right it is primarily religion so it is not part of scientific inquiry so it is irrelevant to our discussion.
We are free to try.
Just read Matthew 23. Jesus didn't earn a reputation there for accepting differing points of view--one of the most important practices in science.
He was talking about religious principles not science or nature, so it is irrelevant to our discussion.
 

Unknown Soldier

Active member
No, we are discussing who invented modern science. The Greeks may have invented science, but not modern science. You do know there is a difference right?
Aside from the times when the science was done, no, the way science has been done has been remarkably consistent throughout history. Nevertheless there is one key difference I should emphasize is that science as we do it today is essentially atheistic in that no divine revelation is appealed to as a source of information. It is of course nonsense to credit Christianity for that!
Yes, only Christians came up with an ongoing, self correcting, systematic study of nature. Which is what modern science is.
Even if it's true that Christians came up with modern science it's still irrelevant to Christianity getting that credit. I'm not disputing the contributions Christians have made to science but the contributions the Christian faith has made to science.

By the way, 20 percent of Nobel laureates have been Jewish. The way you judge credit for science, I'd say that Judaism should be credited for modern science!
I said a few really smart Greeks did, but not Greek society as a whole. That is why they were not able to set up the foundations of modern science.
Actually, the science practiced by many Christians has its roots in Greek philosophy and mathematics as well as Greek science. So rather than credit Christianity for what those Christians have done, we should credit the thinking of the Hellenistic Greeks.
Sorry, I had the wrong verse. It should be 33:20. You said you wanted to know where the Bible teaches the existence of natural laws.
Here's what Jeremiah 33:20 says:
Thus saith the Lord; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season...
I don't get it; what does this passage have to do with natural law?
OK, what does that prove?
Yes, but not to discover what those celestial bodies are and where they are and how they move. And test their predictions about these things. Only Christians did this.
Yes, some Christians like Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo made some important discoveries about the planets. But your fallacy is to then claim that Christianity made that possible. Actually, the cosmology in both Old and New Testaments is full of errors not the least of which is the "firmament," a mythical ocean in the sky not to mention that stars can fall from the sky.
Really? You must be omniscient! But you are right it is primarily religion so it is not part of scientific inquiry so it is irrelevant to our discussion.
Then don't cite anything that is irrelevant.
He was talking about religious principles not science or nature, so it is irrelevant to our discussion.
It is relevant. Any kind of angry, abusive language or activity has no part in scientific thinking and discovery.
 

e v e 21

Well-known member
Modern science was part of a long play by the fallen angels / archons.
It describes this foreign matrix / land (their corrupt earth) and presents solutions to it.

Everything about it is wheelchairs, glasses, etc. Because man is a
disabled mess thanks to adam. We now have a body that dies
and with bones that break, gravity, and bad weather.

Eden will be restored and does not need science, as she is not disabled.

Science is needed here because everything breaks, ages, and dies.
It comes in with 'promises' to resolve these problems. How convenient that after
the fallen angels plotted for eden to fall, made her fall, then they, with their science,
come in with assistance...

This place is a horror compared to the previous situation. Science is not an advance.
It is a way to cope in a very harsh reality.

"Science" was installed in proto by plato and all its concepts already existed in proto.

There is nothing new and the term 'modern' as a concept and all the experts
pretending to decipher God but really trying to confuse souls, are a joke.

We are way behind the ancients....

After the fallen angels 'installed' this earth and this 'solar system' - that does evolve
and that does rotate around earth - as our prison, it's all been downhill from there.
 

Rachel Redux

Active member
Modern science was part of a long play by the fallen angels / archons.
It describes this foreign matrix / land (their corrupt earth) and presents solutions to it.

Everything about it is wheelchairs, glasses, etc. Because man is a
disabled mess thanks to adam. We now have a body that dies
and with bones that break, gravity, and bad weather.

Eden will be restored and does not need science, as she is not disabled.

Science is needed here because everything breaks, ages, and dies.
It comes in with 'promises' to resolve these problems. How convenient that after
the fallen angels plotted for eden to fall, made her fall, then they, with their science,
come in with assistance...

This place is a horror compared to the previous situation. Science is not an advance.
It is a way to cope in a very harsh reality.

"Science" was installed in proto by plato and all its concepts already existed in proto.

There is nothing new and the term 'modern' as a concept and all the experts
pretending to decipher God but really trying to confuse souls, are a joke.

We are way behind the ancients....

After the fallen angels 'installed' this earth and this 'solar system' - that does evolve
and that does rotate around earth - as our prison, it's all been downhill from there.
Why would the fallen angels install this earth as a prison?
 
Top