Science vs Christianity

[CrowCross]

You really need to do better than this unsupported, conspiracy theory laced assertion if you want to show what you've said is true.

You know what I'm saying is true....so stop.

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

I do not want to control what you choose to believe,

Yes you do. Else you wouldnt be here.

but if you tell others in a public forum that the world is flat, or that evolution is a lie, then I WILL oppose you:

Evolution is a lie.

“Get behind me Satan”, for you have become my adversary.

Do you even believe in God and that the Bible is His God-breathed written word? If not then why would you try to co-op Scripture that you don't believe. Seems rather disingenuous.

Purely ad hominem and illogical.

That's what you have huh...poison the well. So be it.

 

[docphin5]

Sadly your dependent upon your feelings to guide your conscience.

I can say that too, Sadly your dependent upon your feelings to guide your conscience.

Weren’t you the one earlier complaining about people merely naysaying, yet that is all you do. you present no defense of your false claims and whine when others challenge them with actual reason or evidence. I think you should stick to the Theology forums where ten Christians can debate all day how many angels dance on a pinhead depending on how each interprets scripture. There is no objective standard to verify if anyone is right because it is all BS.

 

[CrowCross]

I can say that too, Sadly your dependent upon your feelings to guide your conscience.

Weren’t you the one earlier complaining about people merely naysaying, yet that is all you do. you present no defense of your false claims and whine when others challenge them with actual reason or evidence. I think you should stick to the Theology forums where ten Christians can debate all day how many angels dance on a pinhead depending on how each interprets scripture. There is no objective standard to verify if anyone is right because it is all BS.

WOW!!!...listen to this cheap talk....yet they can't even begin to explain how organelle evolved to form an assembly line that follows a code and produces other organelle that fulfill certain functions that are required for life.

Maybe docphin5 should stick to fantasy forums.

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

I can say that too, Sadly your dependent upon your feelings to guide your conscience.

That is the error you are making,.presuming I prefer feelings over fact.

Weren’t you the one earlier complaining about people merely naysaying, yet that is all you do.

Please quote any "naysaying" I have done. You made the claim, now back it up.

you present no defense of your false claims and whine when others challenge them with actual reason or evidence

Please point me to the actual reason and evidences.

I think you should stick to the Theology forums where ten Christians can debate all day how many angels dance on a pinhead depending on how each interprets scripture.

I'll take your recommendation under advisement....nope. I like this discussion so why would I leave.

There is no objective standard to verify if anyone is right because it is all BS.

The objective standard is what God has revealed about Himself in the Bible. You, however, subjectively reject it because what we, probably not you, read in Scripture doesn't align with what you want. Simple reality.

 

[The Pixie]

He says, then predictably goes on to detail the idealistic preventative methods that must be swept aside in order to achieve the corruption . . .

Okay, so what is your point? I am not claiming scientists are never corrupt; I am sure some are. But the overall process is one of progress towards truth, because the corrupt are not that many, and are are pulling in different directions, and there are checks in place.

Manipulated, distorted, misrepresented, abused, neglected, underfunded, biased, erroneous etc. Like anything and everything else.

And yet look at all the technology around you that is built on that science. The fact that we are communicating across the world is testament to the success of science.

Like anything and everything else. And please! Don't link Answers In Genesis at me! For any reason except for as you apparently just have, to aptly demonstrate how "Christianity" is a stupid farce. That, by the way, was corrupted just as science has been.

But Answers In Genesis is representative of a lot of Christians - especially on CARM. You may not like that, but it is true.

Dogmatic: inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true.

I know what it means. That is why I used it.

And it's beautiful. But scientists aren't. Corruption isn't. Any time you have anything that can make money - it's done. It's over. Misery, death and destruction will follow. People who cling to whatever beautiful idea that it may have been while minimizing it's obvious destruction can only see what? Jesus talking to them as an imaginary friend that makes some sort of sense out of it all, but it doesn't and it isn't Jesus. People who think the world is a horrible place but it could be much better if our political party gets power, but it doesn't. People who think science is a beautiful idea, and it is, but think that it can be protected by its own tentative creed. That's right, I said creed.

And yet despite the corruption, science gives us all the technology we take for granted today.

What do televanglists give us? Empty pockets.

Evidence is selective. The editor of Lancet recently admitted in an editorial that their medical journal had been captured by the pharmaceutical industry. He was fired and it was retracted. But anyone can see it's true. So, let's take an unscientific look at that without being political. And the fact that we have to try hard not to look at it without being political itself speaks volumes about the corruption. Americans spend more than any developed nation and has the sickest people. There are laws protecting pharmaceutical companies from being held accountable for the damage they do. It has it's own ineffective kangaroo court for the few (millions) of cases that aren't blanket protected by those laws. These corporations - all of them - figure into their profit how much they will have to pay for the people they know will be killed or seriously harmed by their petrol based, toxic, addictive, carcinogenic ineffective product. Let's talk lobbying. More than the coal, oil, defense and agriculture. By a lot. For a hundred years or more they have bamboozled the people into thinking they're great. They've chased out the real doctors, who's medicines can't be patented, and whose training goes far beyond the robber baron funded medical industry we got stuck with, and they lobbied for laws to prohibit their practice, eliminating our choice, and sponsored anything and everything though deceptive advertising effectively fooling the people they are killing that they have their best interest in mind.

There seems to be a huge issue with the pharmaceutical industry in the US. How true it is I do not know, but it does seem to be an especially US problem (I guess a product of the healthcare situation). I do not live in the US, so cannot comment.

Oh no! My ideology can't beat up yours with those facts! Isn't Fauci science? I don't think he deals in facts per se.

He was trying to handle a situation where nobody knew what was going to happen, so no, he did not deal with facts.

Pitting science and Christianity against one another is stupid. Obviously ideological bullshit. Christianity is dogmatic because it's supposed to be. Science is theoretical because it's supposed to be. Duh. Apples and oranges. If science is what it is then it should have and does have no objection to Christianity which itself has no objection to science. Why? Because religion gives it's own facts to be taken on faith and science debates how things work.

Why do you say science is theoretical because it's supposed to be?

So, what, then, is the scientific objection - let's say - to Noah's flood? There isn't any evidence that we know, have been made aware of or agree upon. Okay, that's the "perspective" of science. Do I need to disagree with that as a believer in Noah's flood? No. Not at all. Should I scrap my faith in Jehovah, the God of the Bible which suggests that flood as real. No.

It is not that there is no evidence, but that the evidence tells us there was no global flood. And I know plenty of Christians have no problem with believing it never happened.

It's only when you turn science into your own religion - utopian solution for mankind's problems - that it becomes a stupid ideological juxtaposition.



Yeah, but those emails were something, huh? Boy, you better not cross them. Look at how a bogus study can be quoted over and over by politicians and the corporate sponsored media. At the Paris Agreement. Look at, and I mean really look at the truth.

I am not sure quite what you are arguing for here. What emails? Climate change is real, and the fact that scientists across the world agree on that should alert you to that. They are not all getting money to say that.

Quite the opposite - it looks to me like big corporations, like oil companies, would be far more willing to pay scientists to say it is fraud.

And it is worth pointing out there is a strong correlation between creationism and climate denial. I am not sure quite why, but both are anti-science, and, I suspect, both bring in a lot of cash for some people who see the ignorant rubes as a good source of cash.

So then should I believe those guys? What is their motivation? The problem is that the motivation is almost never to find the truth, objectively, honestly, fairly, without bias, or ideology. So you can't believe anything. Is that a good thing? Atheists don't seem to realize that what they are suggesting in the name of science is "abandon all faith you who enter here." How stupid is that? How stupid is it even to science?!

Again, not sure what you are saying.

For example? And, really are you talking about science, a method of investigation, or technology? Because I think often the two are conflated.

Science is a method of investigation, but it is also the body of knowledge that has resulted from that, and that is the sense I have been using. Technology is the application of that body of knowledge, and is visible all around - that computer in front of you for example.

How so? I want you to tell me exactly how that is.

I am not going to tell you exactly, but electronics is founded in physics. Every chemical used to make every computer and switch requires chemistry; LCD displays use particularly clever chemistry, for example. There is even going to be geology involved in laying cables.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

Of course. Qualified with biomedical science being the source of diagnostics and therapies which save lives. Without modern medicine many more lives would have been lost to COVID.

No. Conjecture at best, but no.

But don’t confuse the biomedical science that discovers and develops therapies with the policies of politicians or political appointees. For example, I was against mandating universal masks because the science proves they are not protective against aerosol exposures. But policy overrode the science actually published in CDC official guidelines. Fauci ignored his agencies own recommendations and bowed to the political pressures. Surgical masks would only be effective in reducing spread of infection from INDIVIDUALS who were actively coughing but did nothing for those who were healthy.

Absolutely true. And what about ivermectin, early treatment, Remdesivir? Early treatment was crucial. Hospitals sent people home until it was too late. Proven safe and effective inexpensive medicines and prophylactic treatments were strongly discouraged. Remdesivir pays more. Nurses call it "runmurderisnear." Why did patients die of kidney failure due to a respiratory virus. Remdesivir cause kidney failure.

I've watched closely this 5 hour long Senate "roundtable" discussion several times. By scientists and doctors. Their experience is shameful to us. Discussion on the video starts at 40:20.

 

[docphin5]

That is the error you are making,.presuming I prefer feelings over fact.

Please quote any "naysaying" I have done. You made the claim, now back it up.

Please point me to the actual reason and evidences.

I'll take your recommendation under advisement....nope. I like this discussion so why would I leave.

The objective standard is what God has revealed about Himself in the Bible. You, however, subjectively reject it because what we, probably not you, read in Scripture doesn't align with what you want. Simple reality.

And a lot of it is allegory which requires a more critical analysis, a sophistication, interpretation, than a mere wooden literalism. The intended meaning from the cultural context of its author must be considered. Just because you read in scripture that God killed a dragon does not mean everyone must believe in dragons.

LetPaul serve as our example, “Now this may be interpreted allegorically:…” (Gal 4:24)

 

[docphin5]

No. Conjecture at best, but no.

I am pretty sure that the IV fluids and antibiotics developed by the biomed industry helped save some patients suffering from secondary infections. But you do you.

Absolutely true. And what about ivermectin, early treatment, Remdesivir? Early treatment was crucial. Hospitals sent people home until it was too late. Proven safe and effective inexpensive medicines and prophylactic treatments were strongly discouraged. Remdesivir pays more. Nurses call it "runmurderisnear." Why did patients die of kidney failure due to a respiratory virus. Remdesivir cause kidney failure.

I've watched closely this 5 hour long Senate "roundtable" discussion several times. By scientists and doctors. Their experience is shameful to us. Discussion on the video starts at 40:20.

I have not seen the actual experimental or clinical data on ivermectin’s efficacy for Covid infection so I have no opinion on it. I doubt you have seen the actual data too. You are just repeating opinions that you heard. What I do know is that it is commonly used as an anti-nematode/mite medicine and have used it on patients all the time for that purpose.

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

And a lot of it is allegory which requires a more critical analysis, a sophistication, interpretation, than a mere wooden literalism. The intended meaning from the cultural context of its author must be considered. Just because you read in scripture that God killed a dragon does not mean everyone must believe in dragons.

LetPaul serve as our example, “Now this may be interpreted allegorically:…” (Gal 4:24)

I am by no stretch of the imagination a Calvinist but I do like how Calvin illuminated what Paul wrote in Galations 4:24. He wrote:

Which things are symbolic: Paul wanted it understood that he used pictures from the Old Testament. His reference to Hagar and Ishmael were pictures, meant to illustrate his point. Now he would bring in another picture.

i. Paul was clearly guided by the Holy Spirit here. For us, we must be careful about reading allegorical or symbolic things into the Scriptures. “Scripture, they say, is fertile and thus bears multiple meanings. I acknowledge that Scripture is the most rich and inexhaustible fount of all wisdom. But I deny that its fertility consists in the various meanings which anyone may fasten to it at his pleasure. Let us know, then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and simple one, and let us embrace and hold it resolutely.” (Calvin)

 

[Gus Bovona]

This sounds like a commercial. At best a commercial only tells one side and at worst it deceives.

What it sounds like doesn't matter; what matters is whether it is accurate or not.

 

[docphin5]

I am by no stretch of the imagination a Calvinist but I do like how Calvin illuminated what Paul wrote in Galations 4:24. He wrote:

Which things are symbolic: Paul wanted it understood that he used pictures from the Old Testament. His reference to Hagar and Ishmael were pictures, meant to illustrate his point. Now he would bring in another picture.

i. Paul was clearly guided by the Holy Spirit here. For us, we must be careful about reading allegorical or symbolic things into the Scriptures. “Scripture, they say, is fertile and thus bears multiple meanings. I acknowledge that Scripture is the most rich and inexhaustible fount of all wisdom. But I deny that its fertility consists in the various meanings which anyone may fasten to it at his pleasure. Let us know, then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and simple one, and let us embrace and hold it resolutely.” (Calvin)

Nope. Paul is doing exactly what Philo and the Essenes did, that is, interpret or allegorize Hebrew scriptures for its actual intended meaning pertaining to cosmogenesis and the development of human moral consciousness. They were all primarily interested in human soul processes relating to world-soul (Son of God) and his Father, the absolute Good One.

 

[Whatsisface]

Where is the error?

I've already said, however, your error is in quoting a bible verse as if it conveys some truth without giving any reason to think it true. This is compounded by quoting said verses at atheists as if it conveys truth when atheists aren't going to think it does. So what the bible says something? Give us something to show what it says is true.

 

[Whatsisface]

You know what I'm saying is true....so stop.

You're getting worst.

My response, oh no I don't. Now what?

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

What it sounds like doesn't matter; what matters is whether it is accurate or not.

No, it may be accurate to some extent but how does that affect reality? The reason it sounds like it does is that is what it is. One sided and deceptive. Accuracy don't mean squat if the reality is deadly. And science is far more deadly than religion. That's saying something. I don't give or accept one sided fact checks.

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

I've already said, however, your error is in quoting a bible verse as if it conveys some truth without giving any reason to think it true.

What could I say to cause you to "reason" it's true since you are already entrenched in your atheism? I would like to point out though, sometimes posters who comment forget the lurkers who are reading these comments.

This is compounded by quoting said verses at atheists as if it conveys truth when atheists aren't going to think it does.

What else would you expect from me, a born-again, sold-out Jesus Freak? I mean...honestly. If you have different expectations for we who follow the Way on CARM, then you're mistaken. And I'd like to point out you answered your own question to me. You think it doesn't convey truth. Think. Not know. Think. That doesn't mean I will stop quoting Scripture.

So what the bible says something? Give us something to show what it says is true.

Just as believing in evolution takes a certain faith, so does believing in what God tells us in His written Word takes a certain faith. Now, if I could bottle what I have received from Him, for your benefit, I would most assuredly bottle it and give it to you. The reality of that is, though, I will not sway you one way or another but as the Holy Spirit moves in people's lives, seeds planted are watered. Like it or not I am here and not going away. I may be on another forum, but this forum has always piqued my interest.

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

Nope. Paul is doing exactly what Philo and the Essenes did, that is, interpret or allegorize Hebrew scriptures for its actual intended meaning pertaining to cosmogenesis and the development of human moral consciousness. They were all primarily interested in human soul processes relating to world-soul (Son of God) and his Father, the absolute Good One.

That's very gnostic and esoteric and totally unfounded. Again, Paul was not a mystic. He was not a Jewish philosopher. He was not a gnostic. He was a follower of the Way who was the apostle to the gentiles and the man inspired by the Holy Spirit to pen 2/3rds of the News Testament.

P.s. you missed following up on this claim:

docphin 5: Weren’t you the one earlier complaining about people merely naysaying, yet that is all you do.

Ldb: Please quote any "naysaying" I have done. You made the claim, now back it up.

 

[Whatsisface]

What could I say to cause you to "reason" it's true since you are already entrenched in your atheism?

You seem to be admitting that there isn't any confirmable reason to think the Bible true. A confirmable reason would do it.

What else would you expect from me, a born-again, sold-out Jesus Freak?

I would like reasonableness.

I mean...honestly. If you have different expectations for we who follow the Way on CARM, then you're mistaken.

It just baffles me that you post such things as if you think it will cut any ice.

And I'd like to point out you answered your own question to me. You think it doesn't convey truth. Think. Not know. Think. That doesn't mean I will stop quoting Scripture.

You're still not getting the point. It's a waste of time quoting scripture at atheists when you have given no reason to think it contains truth in the first place. You do have said reasons don't you?

Just as believing in evolution takes a certain faith,

Only to those who don't understand it.

so does believing in what God tells us in His written Word takes a certain faith.

Faith is an unreliable path to truth.

Now, if I could bottle what I have received from Him, for your benefit, I would most assuredly bottle it and give it to you.

There are many who have thought the same, only to later realise they were mistaken.

The reality of that is, though, I will not sway you one way or another

You could with verifiable evidence.

but as the Holy Spirit moves in people's lives, seeds planted are watered. Like it or not I am here and not going away. I may be on another forum, but this forum has always piqued my interest.

Ok. But i think you're going the wrong way about it. In order to reach an atheist you have to start by saying something that makes sense to an atheist and go from there. Starting with bible verses just isn't going to cut it.

 

[Gus Bovona]

No, it may be accurate to some extent but how does that affect reality? The reason it sounds like it does is that is what it is. One sided and deceptive.

It's not one-sided, because it includes the acknowledgment that science makes mistakes, that scientists can be biased, etc.

Accuracy don't mean squat if the reality is deadly. And science is far more deadly than religion. That's saying something. I don't give or accept one sided fact checks.

Finding out what reality is like is different from how that knowledge is used.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

It's not one-sided, because it includes the acknowledgment that science makes mistakes, that scientists can be biased, etc.

Much like a drug commercial has scenes of almost unimaginable joy while quickly mumbling in the background a plethora of side effects including death.

Finding out what reality is like is different from how that knowledge is used.

Hmm. You mean finding out how knowledge can be altered, or how reality can be altered, or how it is altered?