Bible makes no scientific claims

[Astrid]

What was taught when I was at school was the best that science could come up with at the time. I've done a bit more research since, but since evolution is fundamentally flawed, I don't go into it deeply. There are many theories as to why the Titanic sank. The fact is that it is at the bottom of the ocean. You can keep tinkering with the theory of evolution all you like. It's fundamentally flawed. Evolutionists can't agree except that evolution happens. I read articles about new discoveries from time to time. They are full of "just so happened" assumptions.

When I was at school, there was a new science textbook every year. The reason is that what science so confidently asserted as fact was often proven to be wrong. Now Einstein and Newton's theories are under threat. Who knows? And really, what does it matter?

No one can go back in time so no one knows for sure. You ask which version of creation I believe, it is known as the gap theory, or pre-Adamic creation. I could be wrong. If you want real confusion, check out the various streams of evolutionary thought.

There is nothing that I can say that will convince an evolutionist that they are wrong. There is nothing an evolutionist can say to convince me that I am wrong. I went to the source, Almighty God. I trust Him implicitly. There is no new Bible every year. God got it right first time.

Not all the above.

As i said before its a great shame you
to such a poor school.
Teaching that theory is fact.
THAT is dumb.

And if they changed books every year that is
corruption, someone getting kickbacks

Texts in all subjects are a racket in the USA,
so yeah, no doubt Oz is afflicted too. A shame.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Maybe it is because science is a human, worldly endeavour that is anti God. It was not always like that. Many of the early scientists were Christians. I'm not anti science. I'm anti the attitude that science and technology are the answer to every human problem. While science has improved many people's lifestyles, it has not changed the human heart. And that is the real problem that only God can solve.

Science doesn't care about your god one way or the other. It only investigates the detectable. Perhaps if your god were detectable it would be investigated. Then you might have a valid gripe.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps if your god were detectable it would be investigated.

Read that slowly.

That about says it all.

And for the record: investigated for what exactly?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Maybe it is because science is a human, worldly endeavour that is anti God. It was not always like that. Many of the early scientists were Christians. I'm not anti science. I'm anti the attitude that science and technology are the answer to every human problem. While science has improved many people's lifestyles, it has not changed the human heart. And that is the real problem that only God can solve.

That's not a good reason not to study the Philosophy of Science.

The reason I say this is because as a fellow Christian, I agree with you that some skeptics seem to insist that science and technology are the answer to everything. That's not the case; science doesn't replace the Bible.

And if both skeptics and Christians were to study the Philosophy of Science, they might find that there are limits or fault lines in their insistence that science does do such a thing and that it is a fallacy to assume that good science necessarily leads to "scientism."

 

[Aussie Pete]

Science doesn't care about your god one way or the other. It only investigates the detectable. Perhaps if your god were detectable it would be investigated. Then you might have a valid gripe.

Blind people cannot see colours and shapes. Even if a sighted person explains it, they do not understand. Science should care about God. It would not exist if there was no God. But many people are spiritually blind. Worse, they don't want to see.

You don't believe God is detectable. I don't know what you expect. Do you want God to speak? He's done that already. His words are recorded in the Bible. You want Him to come to the earth maybe? He did that in human form. He is called Jesus. Every material thing, animal, vegetable or mineral, says that there is a God. You choose not to believe. I know God. I know that He is real. He is active in my life all the time. He speaks to me, he answers my prayers, He helps me when I'm in trouble, He heals me when I'm sick and meets my every need. You are just pixels on the computer screen. I assume that you exist because the pixels have meaning. I know God is real because I know Him. I don't know you. I have more assurance that God is real than I do that you are real.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You don't believe God is detectable.

My point is that your god is *undetected*. Either it us undetectable, or it is working hard to avoid detection.

[Remember, this is because you said science was "Anti-God". But if it can't detect something like a god or spirit then science just doesn't have anyway to investigate such a thing. If it is not detected, science just don't care.]

 

[Aussie Pete]

That's not a good reason not to study the Philosophy of Science.

The reason I say this is because as a fellow Christian, I agree with you that some skeptics seem to insist that science and technology are the answer to everything. That's not the case; science doesn't replace the Bible.

And if they were to study the Philosophy of Science, they might find that there are limits or fault lines in their insistence that science does such a thing and that it is a fallacy to assume that good science necessarily leads to "scientism."

I don't need to know a lot about science. There are excellent scientists who are Christians. Good on them. I enjoy the benefits of science, but I have other interests.

I wonder how many scientists follow the true philosophy of science. The average Joe gets the impression that science can and will solve all the problems of humanity. How come? That's because scientists themselves make that claim. Who needs God when fusion power will solve all the problems of mankind? Or EV's will stop global warming? Science produced the internet. It's like everything human, a force for good or evil. Christians from all over the world can communicate with each other, and preach the gospel to the lost. And people can access pornography, buy weapons and drugs, swindle people out of millions and so on.

 

[Aussie Pete]

My point is that your god is *undetected*. Either it us undetectable, or it is working hard to avoid detection.

[Remember, this is because you said science was "Anti-God". But if it can't detect something like a god or spirit then science just doesn't have anyway to investigate such a thing. If it is not detected, science just don't care.]

The attitude of much science is not just that it does not care. It is "if it is not detectable, it does not exist".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't need to know a lot about science. There are excellent scientists who are Christians. Good on them. I enjoy the benefits of science, but I have other interests.

I wonder how many scientists follow the true philosophy of science. The average Joe gets the impression that science can and will solve all the problems of humanity. How come? That's because scientists themselves make that claim. Who needs God when fusion power will solve all the problems of mankind? Or EV's will stop global warming? Science produced the internet. It's like everything human, a force for good or evil. Christians from all over the world can communicate with each other, and preach the gospel to the lost. And people can access pornography, buy weapons and drugs, swindle people out of millions and so on.

I think you're misunderstanding me when I refer to the "Philosophy of Science." What I'm referring to is "a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science," and these divide out into more than a couple of tracks of thought, some of which compete with each other.

Let me briefly clarify here. When I say Philosophy of Science, I'm not implying that "science IS a philosophy and outlook of life." See the difference? So, Philosophy of Science as I'm referring to it is a diverse field of study that, in some regards, could actually work against the skeptic if he or she holds a false ideal of "scientism." It (PoS) might work against the idea that science has any or all supposed real answers for life (or even for religion), depending on which view within this field of study one takes.

This is why I'm saying that studying Philosophy of Science can be helpful, even if not an obvious conceptual cure all to a lot of the silly stuff that a few scientists say as skeptics against the Christian faith.

Anyway, peace brother! Try not to let it all get to you. Jesus is Lord no matter what certain skeptics say.