Is Christianity alone in this?

[Tcg]

This is certainly not true of all Christians, but there is a subset that rejects the findings of science because they perceive that in some cases these findings conflict with a literal reading of scripture. The age of the earth is a good example. Some claim it is around 6,000 years old. Scientific calculations place it at around 4.5 billion. Evolution is another scientific finding that often gets rejected because it seemingly conflicts with the Genesis story of creation.

Are there other religions that have a subset of its followers who reject scientific findings or is Christianity alone in this?


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

That sounded to me like you admitted that you lost but you are going to run away claiming you won.

The evidence (accepted by many Christians as well as the generality of science) is that the universe is around 14 billion years old and not a week old. The apologetic of dividing this widely accepted dating of the universe into 7 is a feeble excuse that is refuted by genesis itself which has each day marked by dark and light, Morning and evening and (eventually) the sun and moon as markers.

Evidence in the first chapter that the Bible is wrong, and the believers try to wangle ways of fitting it to science (if they are not willing to deny the science) and look either ignorant of what the Bible says or dishonest about it. Or as you do here, want to run away rather than admit that the Bible is wrong about anything.

You have a lot of running to do, Pal, as this is only the start of the evidence fallacies in the Bible. Fallacy (as well as immorality and illogic)runs through the Bible like sickness through a bloodstream,

[Wootah]

This is certainly not true of all Christians, but there is a subset that rejects the findings of science because they perceive that in some cases these findings conflict with a literal reading of scripture. The age of the earth is a good example. Some claim it is around 6,000 years old. Scientific calculations place it at around 4.5 billion. Evolution is another scientific finding that often gets rejected because it seemingly conflicts with the Genesis story of creation.

Are there other religions that have a subset of its followers who reject scientific findings or is Christianity alone in this?


Tcg

I personally think we are witnessing the biggest rejection of the fundamentals of biology in the history of the world. If only atheists believed in evolution and tried to survive and reproduce I could understand them but birth rates are declining globally. I am not talking about you or the other atheists on this forum (of course) but where are the normal, rational, scientific atheists we were promised?

Mostly people (and this is probably due to biology) find evidence that matches their beliefs, even for the age of the earth or the big bang.

Apparently, scientists hated the idea of the big bang because of religious bias.
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2 ... _bang.html

I think we have evidence and we should be allowed to say this evidence matches this theory A and B and C but might disprove theory D, We should hold all theories in a range of possibilities and just let the science move us but the culture allows no dissent. A person with a religious viewpoint can look at a microscope and do science as well as any other person and possibly better because their biases are more conscious to them.

Finally, it seems fairly true, that the rise of science came from a Christian context because of the belief in a good ordered God designing the world to reflect his nature and so philosophically we had a basis to trust that when we studied nature we would find uniformity.

[We_Are_VENOM]

That sounded to me like you admitted that you lost but you are going to run away claiming you won.

1. You win once you accept Christ.

2. I accept Christ.

3. Therefore, I win.

The evidence (accepted by many Christians as well as the generality of science) is that the universe is around 14 billion years old and not a week old.

Well, either those who accept a young earth is wrong...or those many Christians (among scientists) who may be duped by the alleged scientific evidence for an old earth is wrong.

All I know is; Gen 1:1.

The apologetic of dividing this widely accepted dating of the universe into 7 is a feeble excuse that is refuted by genesis itself which has each day marked by dark and light, Morning and evening and (eventually) the sun and moon as markers.

That's what the text says.

Evidence in the first chapter that the Bible is wrong, and the believers try to wangle ways of fitting it to science (if they are not willing to deny the science) and look either ignorant of what the Bible says or dishonest about it. Or as you do here, want to run away rather than admit that the Bible is wrong about anything.

If the Bible said "the universe will be 14.7 billion years during the existence of Transporter on planet earth", would you become a Christian?

I doubt it.

So, if you aren't going to believe regardless, then the convo is pointless.

You have a lot of running to do, Pal, as this is only the start of the evidence fallacies in the Bible. Fallacy (as well as immorality and illogic)runs through the Bible like sickness through a bloodstream,

Opinions.

[TRANSPONDER]

That sounded to me like you admitted that you lost but you are going to run away claiming you won.

1. You win once you accept Christ.

2. I accept Christ.

3. Therefore, I win.

The evidence (accepted by many Christians as well as the generality of science) is that the universe is around 14 billion years old and not a week old.

Well, either those who accept a young earth is wrong...or those many Christians (among scientists) who may be duped by the alleged scientific evidence for an old earth is wrong.

All I know is; Gen 1:1.

The apologetic of dividing this widely accepted dating of the universe into 7 is a feeble excuse that is refuted by genesis itself which has each day marked by dark and light, Morning and evening and (eventually) the sun and moon as markers.

That's what the text says.

Evidence in the first chapter that the Bible is wrong, and the believers try to wangle ways of fitting it to science (if they are not willing to deny the science) and look either ignorant of what the Bible says or dishonest about it. Or as you do here, want to run away rather than admit that the Bible is wrong about anything.

If the Bible said "the universe will be 14.7 billion years during the existence of Transporter on planet earth", would you become a Christian?

I doubt it.

So, if you aren't going to believe regardless, then the convo is pointless.

You have a lot of running to do, Pal, as this is only the start of the evidence fallacies in the Bible. Fallacy (as well as immorality and illogic)runs through the Bible like sickness through a bloodstream,

Opinions.

You lose if you have no good argument
You have no good argument
Therefore you lose.

Old earth (Geological deep time) is supported by evidence. Denial of it is in denial of the evidence.
All I know is that Genesis is wrong.
As you say, Genesis says the days were marked by morning and evening. Therefore trying to reconcile Genesis with a 14 billion year old universe is futile. One either goes with the scientific evidence or one rejects it and opts for Faith in the Bible. Trying to meld them doesn't really work. Faith and science are mutually corrosive.

If the Bible gave the age of the Universe that matched science, it would be a point for Bible -belief. But if the other stuff was wrong, it would be a lucky guess. If the Bible was largely validated by science, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Since it largely debunks the Bible, I can't understand why we're having it.

[We_Are_VENOM]

You lose if you have no good argument
You have no good argument
Therefore you lose.

Wow. That was, like, totally clever.

Old earth (Geological deep time) is supported by evidence. Denial of it is in denial of the evidence.
All I know is that Genesis is wrong.

Thus; the points of contention.

As you say, Genesis says the days were marked by morning and evening. Therefore trying to reconcile Genesis with a 14 billion year old universe is futile. One either goes with the scientific evidence or one rejects it and opts for Faith in the Bible. Trying to meld them doesn't really work. Faith and science are mutually corrosive.

Yeah, it doesn't really work based on your presupposition that the earth is 14 billion years old in the first place.

If you presuppose that the earth is that old, then sure, anything beyond that timeframe is a no-go.

But the keyword here is; presuppose.

And besides, guys like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind (Bible believing YEC) have debated many scientists and have made compelling (in my opinion) cases for YEC, and against OEC.

Now certainly, you disagree with them but guess what, they disagree with you too.

If the Bible gave the age of the Universe that matched science, it would be a point for Bible -belief. But if the other stuff was wrong, it would be a lucky guess. If the Bible was largely validated by science, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Since it largely debunks the Bible, I can't understand why we're having it.

We are having this convo because unbelievers do what they do best; unbelieve.

Plus, remember, a young earth would literally destroy the theory evolution...and we certainly cant have that, can we?

No no no.

[TRANSPONDER]

You lose if you have no good argument
You have no good argument
Therefore you lose.

Wow. That was, like, totally clever.

Old earth (Geological deep time) is supported by evidence. Denial of it is in denial of the evidence.
All I know is that Genesis is wrong.

Thus; the points of contention.

As you say, Genesis says the days were marked by morning and evening. Therefore trying to reconcile Genesis with a 14 billion year old universe is futile. One either goes with the scientific evidence or one rejects it and opts for Faith in the Bible. Trying to meld them doesn't really work. Faith and science are mutually corrosive.

Yeah, it doesn't really work based on your presupposition that the earth is 14 billion years old in the first place.

If you presuppose that the earth is that old, then sure, anything beyond that timeframe is a no-go.

But the keyword here is; presuppose.

And besides, guys like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind (Bible believing YEC) have debated many scientists and have made compelling (in my opinion) cases for YEC, and against OEC.

Now certainly, you disagree with them but guess what, they disagree with you too.

If the Bible gave the age of the Universe that matched science, it would be a point for Bible -belief. But if the other stuff was wrong, it would be a lucky guess. If the Bible was largely validated by science, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Since it largely debunks the Bible, I can't understand why we're having it.

We are having this convo because unbelievers do what they do best; unbelieve.

Plus, remember, a young earth would literally destroy the theory evolution...and we certainly cant have that, can we?

No no no.

I know you will deny all the evidence, but the point about morning and evening is to show that those who try to reconcile a universe 14 billion years old with 7 days are contradicted by the Bible itself. Not everyone can airily dismiss all the science, out of hand.

Now the date of the universe is based on Hubble's constant. I'm useless at math but I gather that working out the formulae of Light, matter and time gives us a date for the universe. You may reject this as you reject the rest of the science.
The age of the earth is based on more science, Argon and potassium dating and various other methods. RATE did their best to debunk the dating but couldn't. If you reject the age of the earth you are dismissing science that even the Creationist thinktank couldn't.
The hilarious thing O Venomous one, is that even if Evolution could be disproved, that would not do a thing to prove a god.

[Wootah]

This is certainly not true of all Christians, but there is a subset that rejects the findings of science because they perceive that in some cases these findings conflict with a literal reading of scripture. The age of the earth is a good example. Some claim it is around 6,000 years old. Scientific calculations place it at around 4.5 billion. Evolution is another scientific finding that often gets rejected because it seemingly conflicts with the Genesis story of creation.

Are there other religions that have a subset of its followers who reject scientific findings or is Christianity alone in this?


Tcg

I personally think we are witnessing the biggest rejection of the fundamentals of biology in the history of the world. If only atheists believed in evolution and tried to survive and reproduce I could understand them but birth rates are declining globally. I am not talking about you or the other atheists on this forum (of course) but where are the normal, rational, scientific atheists we were promised?

Mostly people (and this is probably due to biology) find evidence that matches their beliefs, even for the age of the earth or the big bang.

Apparently, scientists hated the idea of the big bang because of religious bias.
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2 ... _bang.html

I think we have evidence and we should be allowed to say this evidence matches this theory A and B and C but might disprove theory D, We should hold all theories in a range of possibilities and just let the science move us but the culture allows no dissent. A person with a religious viewpoint can look at a microscope and do science as well as any other person and possibly better because their biases are more conscious to them.

Finally, it seems fairly true, that the rise of science came from a Christian context because of the belief in a good ordered God designing the world to reflect his nature and so philosophically we had a basis to trust that when we studied nature we would find uniformity.

I was hopeful for a reply.

[TRANSPONDER]

This is certainly not true of all Christians, but there is a subset that rejects the findings of science because they perceive that in some cases these findings conflict with a literal reading of scripture. The age of the earth is a good example. Some claim it is around 6,000 years old. Scientific calculations place it at around 4.5 billion. Evolution is another scientific finding that often gets rejected because it seemingly conflicts with the Genesis story of creation.

Are there other religions that have a subset of its followers who reject scientific findings or is Christianity alone in this?


Tcg

I personally think we are witnessing the biggest rejection of the fundamentals of biology in the history of the world. If only atheists believed in evolution and tried to survive and reproduce I could understand them but birth rates are declining globally. I am not talking about you or the other atheists on this forum (of course) but where are the normal, rational, scientific atheists we were promised?

Mostly people (and this is probably due to biology) find evidence that matches their beliefs, even for the age of the earth or the big bang.

Apparently, scientists hated the idea of the big bang because of religious bias.
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2 ... _bang.html

I think we have evidence and we should be allowed to say this evidence matches this theory A and B and C but might disprove theory D, We should hold all theories in a range of possibilities and just let the science move us but the culture allows no dissent. A person with a religious viewpoint can look at a microscope and do science as well as any other person and possibly better because their biases are more conscious to them.

Finally, it seems fairly true, that the rise of science came from a Christian context because of the belief in a good ordered God designing the world to reflect his nature and so philosophically we had a basis to trust that when we studied nature we would find uniformity.

I was hopeful for a reply.

Sorry, but I really see nothing to reply to here. The science is what it is and let the scientists validate it. Atheism is just the non -belief in any god -claim, not validation of Biology or making the human species sustainable. And it is quite true that renaissance science was based on finding out how God ordered his universe. It just so happened that it was found that a god wasn't needed to make it work, from the universe of Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler through to Darwin, Einstein and Hawking.

[Wootah]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #28]

I thought it was a bit of a 'mic drop' post as well.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #28]

I thought it was a bit of a 'mic drop' post as well.

Could be, but since you bumped it I had to say that I didn't see it as much to do with the topic. Atheist social obligations aren't really relevant to the validity of science, which is only rejected by Bible believers where it conflicts with something the Bible says and ONLY when it conflicts with something the Bible says. They are happy to rely on it where they can make it look like it supports the Bible. But then we regularly see that they reject the Bible when it doesn't agree with what they want to believe. The one about 14 billion years divided into 7 does not give you a Bible 'day' because the Bible says it is marked by dark and light, morning and evening with sun and moon as signs. It's right there as refutation and yet I have seen it advanced as an apologetic. But the apologists will just pull explanations out of thin air and don't bother to check that it isn't cutting across what the Bible actually says, never mind established science.

Just take the poster who tried to explain Blind Bartymaus outside Jericho when Jesus left AND waiting outside when he arrived. Two different blind men and thus two different Jerichoes. I asked for some evidence of another Jericho and even if there was one, it is highly improbable that Luke mentions only Jesus healing the blind man when he arrives but not the one waiting when he leaves next day (1) while Mark and Matthew mention the one waiting outside when they leave but not the one the day before when Jesus arrived. But such discrepancies never bother them, and why should it when it doesn't bother them that nobody but John has ever heard of the raising of Lazarus from the tomb? Or (to use their apologetic,) not Mark, Matthew OR Luke thought it worthy of a mention.

P.s I have a tentative hardly - a - theory that we might have an original simple claim 'Jesus raised a (young) man from the dead', Just that. And while Luke turned that into the son of Nain (Luke 7.11), John turned it into the raising of Lazarus. No raising of any man from death is in Mark or Matthew (before Jesus) but yet again we see uncanny, but discrepant, links between Luke and John.

(1) which would not need a second Jericho anyway, but our apologist had just produced that on the spot using the hoary old 'two separate events' ploy to get over contradictions.