Science and faith ARE compatible!

A basic question for you to ask.
Why does science, engineering and maths etc work?
If your guest believes in evolution he believes that it is randomness that has caused everything, so how does he explain how random processes have created order?

It is also worth pointing out that modern science depends entirely on Christian philisophical ideas to explain how science etc works.
That is that the universe is consistent, understandable and that we are anle to seek to understand it.

So yes science is compatable with Christianity, but evolutionary atheism isn't

 

@speedyj1992

The music running through the entire video is very loud and distracting.

 

Couldn't agree more........Good to see that some have have gained this understanding, instead of turning everything into a 'war' between people.......May really help some, who have rejected God all together because of what science had to say during the past couple of hundred years......thankfully even a lot of scientists are coming to that realization also....Glory be to His Love...

 

i believe science is man's way of finding out how God does things like creation and ect. except man has taken science and twisted it. they separated God from the equation and now there are so many theories that just do not add up that man is coming up with conclusions that are just stupid. the big bang theory proven impossible but still believed in by others. darwin's evolution theory proved false but still taught in school? how sad it that? i could go on and on but you all probably get the point.

God bless

 

Science really is nothing more than investigating why things are the way they are. If I ask "why does warm air cause a balloon to rise?", I could say "because God intends warm air to rise" but it is in the nature of people to investigate further. It is not wrong to do that because God has created us to be curious inquisitive creatures who investigate our surroundings to gain better understanding. I think where we get into trouble is when we believe that all of the truth of our existence is contained withing the boundaries of what science has explained. Science is useful, beneficial, and good until we make science our god.

 

The common attitude in both faith and science is "I wanna do it myself!" Eve knew the commandment but she wanted to go one better. She omitted a word, she added a word and she changed a word.

Scientists today do the same thing. They have a strictly defined method, but they want to omit, add, and change to make up something of their own. Scientists and preachers both insist that they don't do any such thing, and besides it is perfectly alright to do it!

 

I suspect it is just about impossible to learn what the fossil record really tells us. Most paleontologists are atheists and have no doubts whatsoever that all life on earth evolved from a single cell ver billions of years. So what the present to the world as fossil "evidence" of evolution could be very biased in favour of their philosophical worldview.
For this reason I don't trust the "science" of evolution, as it may not be objective, but subjective, in which it isn't true science, but more like a propaganda vehicle for atheism.

 

However, when it comes to the origins of life n earth, I strongly suspect that science becomes tainted by the atheistic worldview shared by most evolutionary scientists. What they present as fossil "evidence" for evolution, for example, could be very biased towards the model favoured by atheists. In fact, French scientist Pierre Paul Grasse believed this is what happens.
Most paleontologists are atheists and who knows that what they tell us is objective and truthful?

 

Science to me is just like school. It's purpose is good and beneficial, and if done correctly will never contradict the bible but complement it.

However science, just like schools and the media have been infiltrated by the wicked, and setup to be used for their own purpose. Some of this is ideology, political, or the simple lust for money or other wicked intentions to justify evil and suppress good. It's biased, it censors anyone who disagree's with it's current agenda and has fallen from great heights.

True science, like true education and true history is still beneficial.

 

The science was given to a mankind to shape their life on this earth and glorified God as the source of the grace. Because the tree of knowledge had made a mankind to becoming like the creator (Genesis 2:9), but the tree of knowledge had given to mankind as a gift and also as a curse (Genesis 2:16-17; Genesis 3:22), as a gift to a man who had a loving heart and a curse to a man who had an evil heart.
Now, we can surely profit from science if we can use them for a good intention. As God himself make a clarity about this (1 Corinthians 8:1-8).
But, sometimes mankind falls into temptation because they were tempted by their own desire. For instance, mankind creates a knive as a tool to make a food, but in the hand of an evil people the knive had become a deadly weapon. So, the main problem of ourlives and all sufferings lately had came from ourselves, they were lack of a spiritual awareness and those evil doers are the weak hearted to their own self.
So, whosoever wants to lived in God they must be able to make war to their own desire, because the greatest enemy in the world is our own fleshy desire. If mankind understand this, there is no need of war in this world.

 

It's possible to tell a great deal. Advances in chemistry, nuclear physics, and geology have allowed us to get all kinds of information from rocks that seemed impossible just a few decades ago. One of those was the discovery that very small amounts of organic material can survive in rocks under the right conditions for many millions of years. That led to the discovery that the Ediacaran Biota (living things that existed long before the "Cambrian Explosion") were truly animals. Small traces of cholesterol were found in those rocks, indicating that the complex Vendian organisms truly were animals, not some extinct kingdom or domain.

Doesn't take an atheist to figure that out. Indeed, Darwin assumed that God created the first simple living things.

Perhaps the greatest fossil find showing how ancient life is, would be the Burgess Shale, discovered and investigated by Charles Walcott a conservative Protestant scientist.

Technically, evolution is an observed phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is the science that describes and explains it. I suspect you are referring to a consequence of the observed phenomenon, common descent. That is not evolutionary theory, which is merely the science that describes how living populations change over time.

Seems unlikely, since even Darwin attributed the origin of life to God.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1872

 

That's a common creationist superstition, but it's completely wrong.
Biological evolution is only about living populations, and how they change over time.
Biological evolution is not about the origin of life
Biological evolution is not about the origin of the universe, other stuff like that.

Random processes can produce order...

Feigenbaum diagram of chaotic systems producing order

...but it's not how the evolution of new taxa works. Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random.

Darwin, for example, thought God was responsible for the origin of life. However, the methodology of science was first worked out by Democritus of Abdera, (a pagan Ionian Greek) along with a number of other Greek philosophers, formally codified by Islamic scientists like Ibn Al-Haytham, and introduced to the west by Roger Bacon.

"Evolutionary atheism" is a non-sequitur like "electronic Judaism" or "hydraulic Christianity."

 

Science can tell us a lot about WHAT happened, but science cannot tell us WHAT IS RESPONSIBLE for the history of life on earth. This is hardly surprising, since science cannot possible explain miracles, and that is what life on earth is - a serie of miracles that has unfolded over vast periods of time.

The theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth, but that doesn't mean that theory is a good one - and it isn't. A scientific theory that attempts to explain a miracle of God is 100% guaranteed to fail. The atheism-dominated scientific community deludes itself that it has discovered what is responsible for the history of life on earth - I don't think so.

 

Evolutionary scientists claim evolution is not a random process because it is driven by natural selection, which is not random. But I think they're wrong. Although natural selection is not a random process, it is a slave to environment conditions, and environmental condition ARE random. So it is randomness that ultimately determines the direction and outcome of evolution.

 

Since a long ago, babylonian always tempt God. This is obvious when God heal Israel (Hosea 7:1-2) and also when Jesus heals Lazarus (John 12:9-11). So, babylonian was always tried to prevent people who are healed by God from being healed.

According to the progress of current digital age, we have to keep our trust to God because the world is not our place (John 15:19; 1 John 2:15-17).

 

whats wrong with Theistic evolution, one might ask

you might like the abarim guy... The Fate of Our World: The Bible, AI and Cryptocurrency
and ntmy, mark

but we call satan the liar! lol

how so?

wadr i suggest that when you change your perspective, their perspective might come into focus better? Christians were first called Atheists too, eh? See, you have some definitions, now set like cement in your mind, prolly at "and created He them in His image" that some preacher gave you, that cannot be abrogated, right? I mean at least thats how i tend to think, and imo how most believers do?

how might a paloentologist present a biased model of paleontology, iyo? I briefly searched the French guy but couldnt nail anything relevant here, ty

and since i guess i wont get any reply, best of luck to you ok, have a nice day

i think science has always been harnessed by the powerful in pursuit of more power, yet ends up exposing the powerful and benefitting the ppl in the end prolly.

Biased i dont know, maybe temporarily, as in the Cassini case, but the Scientific Method insures that a Roemer will always come along? Of course we still name things after Cassini right, and who has ever heard of Roemer?

?

but the earth is, right

could you give us a little more here? ty

 

Yep.

They are observably correct. Would you like me to show you some examples?

No, so far as I can see, they are deterministic. Would you like me to show you that? Environment changes in deterministic ways. And the idea that evolution is random is similar to that of a person who says top salesmen are on top, just because they were lucky enough to encounter people ready to buy things.

Fitness only matters in terms of environment. So we expect to see evolution move in the direction of increased fitness.

Hence, response to environment is predictable and non-random.

For example, insular species on relatively small islands tend to be smaller than those on continents. We have numerous examples of elephants on small islands, being miniaturized in environments as different as California, Siberia, the Mediterranean, and the East Indies.

Predators in Australia, which was originally populated by only marsupial and monotreme species, evolved in very similar ways to placental predators.

This is how Darwin discovered that evolutionary processes are not random. Environmental changes result in predictable adaptations.