[QUOTE=jillianleab]
ActionJackson, how can you say you love science until it contradicts God? Isn't that just saying you agree with what other people say until you don't? Of course scientists can be Christian, but that doesn't mean they are better/worse more right/more wrong than scientists of other religions.
QUOTE]

True science will never contradict God for God is the author of all knowledge. I should have said the "science community" who preach non-scientific theories as true science. For instance, "evolution" has never been demonstrated in a lab yet it is passed off as a scientific fact. It's not. The "big bang" is based on pure conjecture and has NEVER been recreated in a lab setting and yet it is passed off as a viable, scientific probability. Christian scientists, themselves, aren't better or worse but their conclusions are, in many cases, more believable than the alternative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Then could it be that god made that first cause then set up a series of rules that must be followed to achieve his desired outcome and if this is the case than couldn't science just be humans finding the rules that god set up. Therefore the more you learn about science the more you learn about god.

---

Absolutely. True science will always lead to God's creative ability. True science is simply the search for truth. True Christianity is also the search for truth. Therefore, true science and true Christianity go hand in hand.

I wasn't going to go any further posting on this thread, I have enough ideas, theories, speculations, and yes even facts on the subject of the "pre-history" of the earth to fill a whole book. And probably cause this thread to go into at least 30 different side topics.

But this thread seems to be going in this direction anyway so here are a couple of things to ponder.

Firstly, let us all not forget that the book of Genesis was not originally written in English. Contrary to popular belief it was not even originally written in Aramaic, but in a combination of very very ancient Chaldean and Egyptian. And if you don't believe me about the Egyptian just look at the name of Israel. (Is)is (Ra) (El)Yon. Remember the book of Genesis is believed to be written by Moses and he was raised a Prince of Egypt. Sometimes to fully understand the Bible you have to do a little word study, sometimes a cultural and literary study as well. I could go further on this but like I said have enough for a whole book. I'll just give you a clue to work with.

Look at the words "day" and "creation".
When you look at these words remember they are English. Could there be two different meanings for the same word even in the same chapter?

Secondly, here is a question for everybody why does God ask Adam and Eve to "replenish" the earth not "populate" it?

Why does God ask Adam and Eve to replenish the earth not populate it? Good question. What is your answer to this.

Joe

Why didn't God make 5,000 humans to begin with so the touchy subject of incest is removed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PortalWriter

I wasn't going to go any further posting on this thread, I have enough ideas, theories, speculations, and yes even facts on the subject of the "pre-history" of the earth to fill a whole book. And probably cause this thread to go into at least 30 different side topics.

But this thread seems to be going in this direction anyway so here are a couple of things to ponder.

Firstly, let us all not forget that the book of Genesis was not originally written in English. Contrary to popular belief it was not even originally written in Aramaic, but in a combination of very very ancient Chaldean and Egyptian. And if you don't believe me about the Egyptian just look at the name of Israel. (Is)is (Ra) (El)Yon. Remember the book of Genesis is believed to be written by Moses and he was raised a Prince of Egypt. Sometimes to fully understand the Bible you have to do a little word study, sometimes a cultural and literary study as well. I could go further on this but like I said have enough for a whole book. I'll just give you a clue to work with.

Look at the words "day" and "creation".
When you look at these words remember they are English. Could there be two different meanings for the same word even in the same chapter?

Secondly, here is a question for everybody why does God ask Adam and Eve to "replenish" the earth not "populate" it?

---

OK Portal..

You have got my attention.

[QUOTE=ActionJackson
For instance, "evolution" has never been demonstrated in a lab yet it is passed off as a scientific fact. It's not. [/QUOTE]

So when you doctor with an infection do you say give me the old antibiotics or the new ones that the microbes haven't evolved to be resistant to them yet. You have to least admit that organisms change over time this has been shown many time in a lab. Many people have done some interesting work with fruit flies showing how introducing a new challenge to their environment causes them to change and that is evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

So when you doctor with an infection do you say give me the old antibiotics or the new ones that the microbes haven't evolved to be resistant to them yet. You have to least admit that organisms change over time this has been shown many time in a lab. Many people have done some interesting work with fruit flies showing how introducing a new challenge to their environment causes them to change and that is evolution.

---

I don't take antibiotics. I don't eat pork so I don't get sick. However, I'll bite. The organism may become more resistant to your antibiotics but it doesn't change into a monkey... it's still the same "brand" of organism that its mommy and daddy were. Furthermore, it didn't become a living organism out of non-organic material.

Quote:

---

True science will never contradict God for God is the author of all knowledge. I should have said the "science community" who preach non-scientific theories as true science. For instance, "evolution" has never been demonstrated in a lab yet it is passed off as a scientific fact. It's not. The "big bang" is based on pure conjecture and has NEVER been recreated in a lab setting and yet it is passed off as a viable, scientific probability. Christian scientists, themselves, aren't better or worse but their conclusions are, in many cases, more believable than the alternative.

---

I've learned my lesson. It's impossible to debate with someone who's response to everything is: "God did it".

How nice that we all have opinions!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Many people have done some interesting work with fruit flies showing how introducing a new challenge to their environment causes them to change and that is evolution.

---

Yes... I've heard of the fruit fly tests. The mutations that occurred in the lab harmed rather than helped the poor little fruit fly. It would not have survived in the wild.

Get on the web and take a gander at a book by Michael Behe called "Darwin's Black Box"
(10th Annivery). He's a non-Chrisitian scientist who specializes in the fields of microbiology and biochemistry. A monumental book dealing with his discovery of "irreducible complexity." The "theory" of evolution was already in trouble but this book pounded the nails into the coffin. Great read and there is NO DOUBT that evolution is bygone and passe'. Time to jump off that bandwagon and find a new, anti-Creation fad to join.

Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Haven't read the book book but it was interesting reading about him. It's not often that a scientist admits and proves himself wrong. He admits that intelligent design is not scientific theory and his concept of "irreducible complexity" didn't hold up under his own studies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Haven't read the book book but it was interesting reading about him. It's not often that a scientist admits and proves himself wrong. He admits that intelligent design is not scientific theory and his concept of "irreducible complexity" didn't hold up under his own studies.

---

Darwin's Black Box book reviews:

"Overthrows Darwin at the end of the twentieth century in the same way that quantum theory overthrew Newton at the beginning" George Gilder in National Review

"A persuasive book. It will speak to the layman and perhaps even to professional evolutionists as well, if they are able to suspend for a little while their own judgment about origins, the ultimate black box." The Washington Times

"An argument of great originality, elegance, adn intellectual power...No one can propose to defend Darwin without meeting the challenges set out in this superbly written and compelling book." David Berlinski, author of A Tour of the Calculus

Behe stands behind his work to this day. I am sure that you took some tidbit of a statement made by him and twisted it in a manner that you hope supports your preconceived ideas. There's nothing new under the sun.

AJ,
Read the link and get back to me. Remember I'm not trying to convince you I know I can't do that. I'm just trying prove you wrong. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Haven't read the book book but it was interesting reading about him. It's not often that a scientist admits and proves himself wrong. He admits that intelligent design is not scientific theory and his concept of "irreducible complexity" didn't hold up under his own studies.

---

I read the link and saw nowhere Behe denouncing his findings. I saw a lot of other men criticizing his findings but without any scientific data. It comes as no surprise that Wikipedia would try to belittle or ridicule a man whom they disagree with. Ultra liberals often denounce truthful information if it furthers their goals. That would be like me sending you to a 700 Club site for an unbiased review of Charles Darwin and his book. Read Behe's book then get back to me (not!).

AJ you obviously did not read the link thoroughly. Let me help you:

Quote:

---

Furthermore, they asserted that he deliberately aimed the publication of this book at the general public in order to gain maximum publicity while avoiding any peer-reviews from fellow scientists or performing new research to support his claims.

---

This means he intentionally published his book to the masses because he knew it would not hold up to peer review.

Quote:

---

Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".[27] During this testimony Behe conceded that definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.[28] Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.

---

This is where he admits, under oath, there are no peer reviewed articles supporting his claim. He also admits he changed the definition of "theory" to fit his argument. That means it's not science. He also admits the mutations could happen, even if the environment wasn't ideal.

Quote:

---

"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."

---

This means in order to accept his claims, you must believe in God. Belief in God is not science.

Quote:

---

Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition

---

This is where it is explained his view is religious, not scientific.

Quote:

---

"Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."

---

This is where it is evidenced he ignores known evolution menthods in order to fit his claim. This also explains why his idea of "irreducible complexity" is incorrect.

Quote:

---

Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."

---

Well, there you go!

Did he formally denounce his findings? No. Did he admit to manipulating his results and generally accepted scientific procedures and methods to make his idea work? Yes. A majority of these quotes are from what a judge ruled, which have not been skewed by Wiki. In fact, you can link to the fully published ruling by clicking the little blue numbers after each statement.

Hope I helped!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

AJ,
Read the link and get back to me. Remember I'm not trying to convince you I know I can't do that. I'm just trying prove you wrong. :)

---

I'm still waiting. Or are you done?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ActionJackson

I'm still waiting. Or are you done?

---

Yea I'm done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

AJ you obviously did not read the link thoroughly. Let me help you:

Thoroughly enough that I was satisfied that he did not refute his findings.

This means he intentionally published his book to the masses because he knew it would not hold up to peer review.

God intentionally wrote His Book for the masses as well and didn't give two hoots about "peers." If I am going to go to all the trouble of writing a book as comprehensive as Darwin's Black Box, I sure hope that it appeals to the masses. Any fool knows that his "peers" aren't interested in anything but status quo...all comfy in their little black box.

This is where he admits, under oath, there are no peer reviewed articles supporting his claim. He also admits he changed the definition of "theory" to fit his argument. That means it's not science. He also admits the mutations could happen, even if the environment wasn't ideal.

Oh, and pro-evolutionists don't write articles and create definitions to "fit their arguments." LOL. Who cares if there are no "peer reviewed articles?" I mean really! His book is well written and has truly interesting information. He clearly isn't lying about his findings. They are what they are. When someone can come along and prove that the religion of evolution is not based on a whole lot of pure faith, I will bend...not until then.

This means in order to accept his claims, you must believe in God. Belief in God is not science.

It is if you apply the argument of cause and effect. There can only be one first Cause. The first Cause is uncaused. Science, by the way, has not been able to disprove God's existence. A bunch of wishful thinking, theories, an blind faith in evolution is not science.

his is where it is explained his view is religious, not scientific.

Their unscientific opinion. They're as protective of their religion as Christians are of theirs. Their feathers wouldn't be all ruffled if Behe wasn't a threat to their established faith.

This is where it is evidenced he ignores known evolution menthods in order to fit his claim. This also explains why his idea of "irreducible complexity" is incorrect.

"Evolution methods?" You make it sound as though some "method" has been discovered by which the theory of evolution is provable. We all know that there are lots of various theories. They're crammed down our throats quite relentlessly but "methods." Could ya do us all a favor and list them there "methods?" If you would be so kind.

Well, there you go!

Yeah, I'm going alright. No real good reason to stick around.

Did he formally denounce his findings? No. Did he admit to manipulating his results and generally accepted scientific procedures and methods to make his idea work? Yes. A majority of these quotes are from what a judge ruled, which have not been skewed by Wiki. In fact, you can link to the fully published ruling by clicking the little blue numbers after each statement.

Judges allow murderes and rapists free every day. Judges legalized the murder of unborn children. Activist judges perpetuate injustice every day in this land. Why should I give a d--n what a judge ruled concerning this issue? You gotta be kidding, right?

Hope I helped!

---

Actually, you helped a great deal. I love these kinds of posts. It shows the true colors of those who deeply hate the religion of Christianity. Please note that I didn't go into an atheist site to start trouble with you. You, on the other hand, purposely entered a site titled Christianity to disrupt and create problems here. Let it be recorded in heaven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Yea I'm done.

---

Now wasn't THAT a waste of precious time.

Quote:

---

Actually, you helped a great deal. I love these kinds of posts. It shows the true colors of those who deeply hate the religion of Christianity. Please note that I didn't go into an atheist site to start trouble with you. You, on the other hand, purposely entered a site titled Christianity to disrupt and create problems here. Let it be recorded in heaven.

---

That is the problem with public forums, they are open to the public. If you didn't want anyone raining on your parade then you would be in a private place and be surrounded by those like you and there would be no problems.