Many claim a Christian cannot also be a scientist

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is not hard if you look at the text in context. The fact is that Exodus, Leviticus is talking about literal slaves.

Everyone understands this.

I don't take all of scripture literally. Can you point out where I have said this?
No - everyone DOESN'T understand the difference between the literal and the allegorical or metaphorical in Scripture.

WHY do you think we have tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering denominations ALL teaching different doctrines yet ALL claiming that THEY have the "truth".

SOME believe in Noah's Flood - SOME think it's allegorical.
SOME believe in Adam and Eve - SOME think it's allegorical.
SOME believe that Job was real - SOME think it's allegorical - and so on.

As for your last comment in RED - YOU said in post #42:
"There are many many things that the bible has wrong about our universe. Like the earth is free floating, darkness is a substance, light is not moving, pi=3 etc."

This is a PERFECT example of a person who doesn't understand how to read Scripture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reggie Belafonte

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
What rapidly expanded?
You can't have a Big Bang without the creation of the gases and matter to "rapidly expand".
Matter expanded and created space and time. At the time of the expansion the matter completely filled space.

Science has shown that we ALL come from a common parentage. It has NEVER been able to prove that we came from monkeys or apes. because there is always the problem oif a "missing link".

The Bible talked about our common parentage - LONG before scientists ever did.
No scientist believes we came from monkeys. They believe with evidence that humans and monkeys have the same ancestor. Mitochondrial Eve is not the first woman that we all came from it is the most recent female that we can trace our lineage to. This does not mean that all humans came from one woman. Scientists does not believe this. There is also no evidence that eve is only 6000 or so years old.
 

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
No - everyone DOESN'T understand the difference between the literal and the allegorical or metaphorical in Scripture.
I was speaking to your specific example that Jesus was a door. No one thinks that Jesus was saying he was an actual door. Of course all people have different interpretations of the bible. Most of the time things are literal or not based on what they want to believe. Do you believe that Exodus 21:20-21 is talking about actual slaves? If not then why not?

do you think we have tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering denominations ALL teaching different doctrines yet ALL claiming that THEY have the "truth".
I 100% agree with this. This is why it seems clear ro me that the bible is unclear.

believe in Noah's Flood - SOME think it's allegorical.
SOME believe in Adam and Eve - SOME think it's allegorical.
SOME believe that Job was real - SOME think it's allegorical - and so on.
I 100% agree again.

As for your last comment in RED - YOU said in post #42:
"There are many many things that the bible has wrong about our universe. Like the earth is free floating, darkness is a substance, light is not moving, pi=3 etc."

This is a PERFECT example of a person who doesn't understand how to read Scripture.
Yes, because these things cannot be literal because they would cause you a problem. You are doing the same thing here that you just derided others for doing. The bible gives dimensions of a pot that cannot be built because it required pi to be three. It was directions to build it, it is not allegorical.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Matter expanded and created space and time. At the time of the expansion the matter completely filled space.
What "matter"??
WHERE
did this "matter" come from??
No scientist believes we came from monkeys. They believe with evidence that humans and monkeys have the same ancestor. Mitochondrial Eve is not the first woman that we all came from it is the most recent female that we can trace our lineage to. This does not mean that all humans came from one woman. Scientists does not believe this. There is also no evidence that eve is only 6000 or so years old.
This is patently FALSE.

According to Dr. Del Tackett and his documentary Is Genesis History?, our human parentage is absolutely a common one and is only several thousand years old. To say there is "No evidence" is simply not true.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I was speaking to your specific example that Jesus was a door. No one thinks that Jesus was saying he was an actual door. Of course all people have different interpretations of the bible. Most of the time things are literal or not based on what they want to believe. Do you believe that Exodus 21:20-21 is talking about actual slaves? If not then why not?
And I only used this as ONE example.
Again - YOU stated:
"There are many many things that the bible has wrong about our universe. Like the earth is free floating, darkness is a substance, light is not moving, pi=3 etc."
These things are OBVIOUSLY allegorical - yet YOU tool then literally.

I 100% agree with this. This is why it seems clear ro me that the bible is unclear.
No - the ONLY thing that is "clear" here is that people like YOU twist the Scriptures because you don't understand how to discern the literal from the metaphorical or allegorical.

Yes, because these things cannot be literal because they would cause you a problem. You are doing the same thing here that you just derided others for doing. The bible gives dimensions of a pot that cannot be built because it required pi to be three. It was directions to build it, it is not allegorical.
This "pi" nonsense is something that has been discussed to death - and will continue to be debated as long as people like YOU have closed minds.

The plain fact is that a "cubit" was not a precise measurement, and varied from the size of one person to the next. It is an approximate measurement - about the length of a forearm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reggie Belafonte

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
What "matter"??
WHERE
did this "matter" come from??
I don't know.

According to Dr. Del Tackett and his documentary Is Genesis History?, our human parentage is absolutely a common one and is only several thousand years old. To say there is "No evidence" is simply not true.
I agree with you in that we and monkeys have a common ancestor. What you said was that monkeys were our ancestor and that is false. That is what I disagreed with. Science says our common human ancestor was not the first woman ever. Mitochondrial Eve was one of many females, but she happened to be the only one who passed down the mitochondrial DNA in an unbroken female to female way and lived ~150,000 years ago. If Dr Del Tackett said these things then he is not saying what is the consensus of scientists think.
 

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
This "pi" nonsense is something that has been discussed to death - and will continue to be debated as long as people like YOU have closed minds.

The plain fact is that a "cubit" was not a precise measurement, and varied from the size of one person to the next. It is an approximate measurement - about the length of a forearm.
This does not matter unless the cubit changed in the same verse. The ratio is what matters. A cubit could be 100 feet and the bible would still say that pi=3. The ratio circumference/diameter is what matters.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't know.

I agree with you in that we and monkeys have a common ancestor. What you said was that monkeys were our ancestor and that is false. That is what I disagreed with. Science says our common human ancestor was not the first woman ever. Mitochondrial Eve was one of many females, but she happened to be the only one who passed down the mitochondrial DNA in an unbroken female to female way and lived ~150,000 years ago. If Dr Del Tackett said these things then he is not saying what is the consensus of scientists think.
And now you have resorted to LYING.
I never made this claim. I said that this is what SCIENCE has taught - which is TRUE.

As for what Dr. Del Tackett teaches - WHO cares if he is in the minority??
YOU
said that "science" didn't support the idea that we came from a common parentage - and you were WRONG. Dr. Tacket is a respected scientist.

YOU
have shown that you have a scientifically CLOSED mind - and that anybody who teaches differently than what you're used to hearing is just plain "wrong".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reggie Belafonte

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
And now you have resorted to LYING.
I never made this claim. I said that this is what SCIENCE has taught - which is TRUE.
Which is wrong.

As for what Dr. Del Tackett teaches - WHO cares if he is in the minority??
I don't but the overwhelming evidence shows he is wrong.


said that "science" didn't support the idea that we came from a common parentage - and you were WRONG.
No all I said was wrong was that monkeys are not our ancestors. You don't understand mitochondrial Eve.

Dr. Tacket is a respected scientist.
If he thinks that mitochondrial Eve was the first woman and lived ~6000 years ago then he is in the minority because science has sufficient evidence to refute those claims.

have shown that you have a scientifically CLOSED mind - and that anybody who teaches differently than what you're used to hearing is just plain "wrong".
No, anyone that claims things against mountains of evidence to the contrary I don't believe.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Which is wrong.
I don't but the overwhelming evidence shows he is wrong.
No all I said was wrong was that monkeys are not our ancestors. You don't understand mitochondrial Eve.
If he thinks that mitochondrial Eve was the first woman and lived ~6000 years ago then he is in the minority because science has sufficient evidence to refute those claims.
No, anyone that claims things against mountains of evidence to the contrary I don't believe.
No - they are scientific THEORIES - and YOU go against anybody who doesn't tow the popular line.
Remember - in post #62 - YOU made the "definitive" claim:
"There is also NO evidence that eve is only 6000 or so years old."

This statement is a LIE. Dr. Tacket presents PLENTY of evidence to show that mankind is thousands - not millions of years old.

Many of the great scientific discoveries of history were made by those who didn't tow the popular line. Just ask Copernicus or Galileo. If it weren't for people like them - we would still be studying about geocentrism instead of heliocentrism . . .
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Reggie Belafonte

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
No - they are scientific THEORIES - and YOU go against anybody who doesn't tow the popular line.
A scientific theory is as close to fact as you can come in science. It is supported by many facts, experimentation, peer review and basicaly so much evidence that it is thought to be basically true.


Remember - in post #62 - YOU made the "definitive" claim:
"There is also NO evidence that eve is only 6000 or so years old."


I should have said credible or sufficient. There is so much evidence that evolution is true and mitochondria Eve was at least 150,000 years old. A couple thousand yeasr is impossible when compared to the evidence for how humans evolved.

This statement is a LIE. Dr. Tacket presents PLENTY of evidence to show that mankind is thousands - not millions of years old.
Science does not say humans are millions of years old. Have you studied evolution at all?

Many of the great scientific discoveries of history were made by those who didn't tow the popular line. Just ask Copernicus or Galileo. If it weren't for people like them - we would still be studying about geocentrism instead of heliocentrism . . .
Yes and it was science that figured out the truth and it was the church that persecuted scientific advances.

Name one scientific discovery by science that was refuted by studying the bible. The bible has always been corrected by science and when science has been wrong it has been other scientists that figured it out. That is how science works.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
A scientific theory is as close to fact as you can come in science. It is supported by many facts, experimentation, peer review and basicaly so much evidence that it is thought to be basically true.
Uh huh - and Geocentrism was a scientific theory that was a "close to fact" as they could come until Copernicus and Galileo discovered Heliocentrism.
I should have said credible or sufficient. There is so much evidence that evolution is true and mitochondria Eve was at least 150,000 years old. A couple thousand yeasr is impossible when compared to the evidence for how humans evolved.
Apparently, you haven't read the works of Dr. Tackett and others in his camp.
Science does not say humans are millions of years old. Have you studied evolution at all?
Science ALSO can't seem to find the "missing" piece of the puzzle. There have been plenty of frauds like "Piltdown Man" in a vain effort to further this human evolution nonsense but NONE have some to fruition.
Yes and it was science that figured out the truth and it was the church that persecuted scientific advances.

Name one scientific discovery by science that was refuted by studying the bible. The bible has always been corrected by science and when science has been wrong it has been other scientists that figured it out. That is how science works.[/QUOTE]
WRONG.

Dr. Tackett has theorized that the Grand Canyon, for example, took a fraction of the time to form itself that popular science claims - and has a mountain of evidence to support this theory. In fact - Dr. Tacket has a laundry list of scientific theories that he has corrected using Scripture. However, since YOU only accept popular theories - the point is moot anyway because you have a scientifically closed mind.
 

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
Uh huh - and Geocentrism was a scientific theory that was a "close to fact" as they could come until Copernicus and Galileo discovered Heliocentrism.
When people pursuing science get more information they change their views based in the evidence. That is the exact opposite to theists. It was more science that discovered the discrepancies in our understanding not more theology.

Apparently, you haven't read the works of Dr. Tackett and others in his camp.
Why would I have? I will read some.

Science ALSO can't seem to find the "missing" piece of the puzzle. There have been plenty of frauds like "Piltdown Man" in a vain effort to further this human evolution nonsense but NONE have some to fruition.
This is a misunderstanding of evolution. Yes ther have been frauds but again it was scientists that exposed the frauds.

Great answer!

Dr. Tackett has theorized that the Grand Canyon, for example, took a fraction of the time to form itself that popular science claims - and has a mountain of evidence to support this theory.
The correct word in hypothesized.


In fact - Dr. Tacket has a laundry list of scientific theories that he has corrected using Scripture.
Has he demonstrated that scripture is a pathway to truth? History says different.

However, since YOU only accept popular theories - the point is moot anyway because you have a scientifically closed mind.
This is ridiculous. I accept the popular theories because they have sufficient evidence to believe they are true. That is why they are popular becasue they are supported by evidence. Mountains of it in fact.[/quote]
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
When people pursuing science get more information they change their views based in the evidence. That is the exact opposite to theists. It was more science that discovered the discrepancies in our understanding not more theology.
Why would I have? I will read some.
This is a misunderstanding of evolution. Yes ther have been frauds but again it was scientists that exposed the frauds.
Great answer!
The correct word in hypothesized.
Has he demonstrated that scripture is a pathway to truth? History says different.
This is ridiculous. I accept the popular theories because they have sufficient evidence to believe they are true. That is why they are popular becasue they are supported by evidence. Mountains of it in fact.
[/QUOTE]
And once again - the popular view is NOT always the correct view.
As I stated before - just ask Copernicus and Galileo.

You are threatened by scientists like Dr. Tackett because they unravel, through Scripture, the fraudulent theories that have been perpetrated on the world in the name of "science" - but really in the cause of atheism. I suggest you check out Is Genesis History - THEN come back and we'll have a discussion . . .
 

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
And once again - the popular view is NOT always the correct view.
As I stated before - just ask Copernicus and Galileo.
I will again point out that it was scientists that correct other scientists as new information is discovered. Not theists. Do we know how to do heart transplants from the bible? Do we know the physics of flight from the bible? Is the cure for polio in the bible? Science is supported by evidence and has proven itself over and over again as a reliable pathway to truth. Science does not claim 100% certainty as faith does.

You are threatened by scientists like Dr. Tackett because they unravel, through Scripture, the fraudulent theories that have been perpetrated on the world in the name of "science" - but really in the cause of atheism.
Sigh. Most scientists don't care about atheism or theism when they are doing their work. Scientists are not advancing atheism since atheism has nothing to advance, it is just a lack of belief in a god.

I suggest you check out Is Genesis History - THEN come back and we'll have a discussion . . .
Ok, so you want me to purchase this movie for $12.99 and then get back to you on all of what is presented? How about you telling me in your own words why you think the earth is thousands of years old over billions of years.

I did find this video

What he says in this video is that all science should be viewed through the lens of the bible story of creation although he never supports that the bible is true. He then goes on to say that scientists has a bias toward an old earth and that affects their observations but then never addresses the bias a Christian must have toward a young earth. The difference here is that science has a mechanism to determine if this bias is happening. Science is open to other scientists repeating experiments and analyzing other scientists data and experimentation. This does many times root out a scientists bias and errors in their methodology and analysis. There is nothing like this for faith. How do we determine if the bible is true, what stories in the bible are true, if god wrote the bible etc. There is no process other than faith.

He then states that the 2nd law of thermodynamics was somehow created at the fall of man and misrepresents what the 2nd law of thermodynamic states. He claims that the fall and the creation of the 2nd law somehow distorts our time measurements with no evidence that this is the case whatsoever, but he wants science to just accept the fall and change their science to conform to it. This is ridiculous way to determine truth in my opinion.

Also, he has degrees in management and computer science. I am not saying that his hypotheses are wrong because of this but he has no formal education in some of these disciplines and that should mean more scrutiny of his claims are warranted.

I did find this pdf summary and I will be commenting on the errors just in this little summary of the film. https://20dgp03jvses4dyzoq6atn0f-wp.../wp-content/uploads/IGH-Guide-to-the-Film.pdf
 
Last edited:

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
And once again - the popular view is NOT always the correct view.
As I stated before - just ask Copernicus and Galileo.

You are threatened by scientists like Dr. Tackett because they unravel, through Scripture, the fraudulent theories that have been perpetrated on the world in the name of "science" - but really in the cause of atheism. I suggest you check out Is Genesis History - THEN come back and we'll have a discussion . . .

I did find a summary of the movie and I want to address his arguments about the flood. The only sources I could find that Dr. Tackett uses are young earth creationist scientists, such as Dr. Steve Austin. Young earth creationists are the very small minority in the scientific community. There are old earth Christian scientists that he could have also asked but none of them appear in this film as I read the credits. Why did he not get these expert opinions as well?

Dr. Austin makes some claims about the Grand Canyon:

1) Geologists have abandoned long ages for the formation of the Grand Canyon. The truth is that some scientists believe the formation took 5-10 million years and not 50-70 million years as previously thought. No geologist thinks it took less than 10,000 years except young earth Christian scientists.

2) Dr. Austin claims that there is evidence of giant lakes that formed the Grand Canyon but does not give any evidence of their size or existence.

3) Dr. Austin talks about the Great Unconformity. This is a surface in the rock record that represent a time when no rocks were preserved, maybe no rocks were formed or they were eroded away. They use this as evidence for a worldwide flood. The great unconformity in the Grand Canyon took almost 1,000 million years to form. Also, they claim that the sequential layers of fossils were laid down by flood surges. The truth is that there is a mile of sediment with no fossils at all. Why would a flood that destroyed all life on the planet not leave any traces of life in the sediment it created?

Here are some questions for young earth creationists about the flood:

1) How do you explain varves? Varves are annual layers in lakes that are laid down over time. The Green river Formation in Wyoming contains over 20,000,000 varves identical to the ones being laid down today and take over a month to settle.

2) Where did all the heat go? If the geological record was laid down in a year then significant amounts of heat would have been generated.

a. Magma would have released an estimated 5.4E27 Joules of heat while cooling form 1100 C. This would have vaporized the flood waters.

b. Limestone formation created heat, if only 10% of the limestone was created during the flood enough heat would be generated to boil all the flood waters. ~5.6E26 Joules.

c. The only way the earth can remove heat is through radiation to space, to dissipate this much heat would take millions of years.

3) Limestone formation: Limestone is formed by skeletons of millions upon millions of microscopic sea animals. Some have been found to be thousands of meters thick. Were all these animals alive when the flood started? 1.5E15 grams of calcium carbonate are deposited on the ocean floor every year, at this rate for 5000 years would only account for 0.02% of limestone formations.

4) Where did all the organic material in the fossil record come from? There are 1.16E13 metric tons of coal reserves and 100 times that in the deposits. If a forest covered the entire earth it would only supply 1.9E13 metric tons of organic material.

There are a lot more questions that his movie I doubt addresses from scientists about young earth creationism. Science has answers based on evidence for all of these questions, young earth creationists do not.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I will again point out that it was scientists that correct other scientists as new information is discovered. Not theists. Do we know how to do heart transplants from the bible? Do we know the physics of flight from the bible? Is the cure for polio in the bible? Science is supported by evidence and has proven itself over and over again as a reliable pathway to truth. Science does not claim 100% certainty as faith does.

Sigh. Most scientists don't care about atheism or theism when they are doing their work. Scientists are not advancing atheism since atheism has nothing to advance, it is just a lack of belief in a god.

Ok, so you want me to purchase this movie for $12.99 and then get back to you on all of what is presented? How about you telling me in your own words why you think the earth is thousands of years old over billions of years.

I did find this video

What he says in this video is that all science should be viewed through the lens of the bible story of creation although he never supports that the bible is true. He then goes on to say that scientists has a bias toward an old earth and that affects their observations but then never addresses the bias a Christian must have toward a young earth. The difference here is that science has a mechanism to determine if this bias is happening. Science is open to other scientists repeating experiments and analyzing other scientists data and experimentation. This does many times root out a scientists bias and errors in their methodology and analysis. There is nothing like this for faith. How do we determine if the bible is true, what stories in the bible are true, if god wrote the bible etc. There is no process other than faith.

He then states that the 2nd law of thermodynamics was somehow created at the fall of man and misrepresents what the 2nd law of thermodynamic states. He claims that the fall and the creation of the 2nd law somehow distorts our time measurements with no evidence that this is the case whatsoever, but he wants science to just accept the fall and change their science to conform to it. This is ridiculous way to determine truth in my opinion.

Also, he has degrees in management and computer science. I am not saying that his hypotheses are wrong because of this but he has no formal education in some of these disciplines and that should mean more scrutiny of his claims are warranted.

I did find this pdf summary and I will be commenting on the errors just in this little summary of the film. https://20dgp03jvses4dyzoq6atn0f-wp.../wp-content/uploads/IGH-Guide-to-the-Film.pdf
You are making all of your suppositions based on a six-minute video.

You can't expect Dr. Tackett to present his entire his case about his theories regarding the formation of the earth or the existence of man and the universe in 6 minutes.

This is ridiculous . . .
 

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
You are making all of your suppositions based on a six-minute video.

You can't expect Dr. Tackett to present his entire his case about his theories regarding the formation of the earth or the existence of man and the universe in 6 minutes.

This is ridiculous . . .
Why should he get the 2nd law of thermodynamics wrong if it's a 6 minute video or a 120 minute movie? Also, do you have answers to the questions I posed as problems for a young earth? I am still researching his ideas.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Why should he get the 2nd law of thermodynamics wrong if it's a 6 minute video or a 120 minute movie? Also, do you have answers to the questions I posed as problems for a young earth? I am still researching his ideas.
No, I don't - and I never claimed to.
I claimed that men of science like Dr. Tackett have evidence that goes far beyond MY pay grade.

YOU claimed that there was NO evidence - so the onus is on YOU to prove your point - not ME.
I already proved MY position that there were scientific minds who didn't agree with YOUR position . . .