The Lord created all 'sciences'.

[Davidjayjordan]

As a basic, it should be understood that the Lord created all the sciences. He knows all things and matter of fact, created all things including the sciences that dictate the motions and interactions between all things. In other words, the Lord created true science, not just true biology but physics, mathematics, chemistry and any other truths.

For He is the cause of the effects. And He above all is rational, logical and mathematical. Only the irrational church system stopped true science not the Lord. They becoming word twisters away from truth, while he has always been an encourager of those who seek more and more. For all things and all sciences point to His creative abilities.

This is why Christian scientists have such an advantage over others, because they tend to see design where others may see luck and chance. They look for the cause that connects, the laws of consistencies that always work. They look beyond and find not just the law but the Lawgiver and MAKER.

Wouldn't you agree ?

[Gman]

This is why Christian scientists have such an advantage over others, because they tend to see design where others may see luck and chance. They look for the cause that connects, the laws of consistencies that always work. They look beyond and find not just the law but the Lawgiver and MAKER.

Wouldn't you agree ?

Hi David,

Yes I would agree, but then again just because they are Christian doesn't necessarily mean they have advantages over others. They can be biased too in their science and observations... I do have have a problem with luck and chance being called the almighty creator however.

Just my two cents...

[Davidjayjordan]

Only in the pseudo sciences do Christians have a disadvantage when the worldly dogma enters IN, such as the false science of evolution which is forced upon the innocent.

As for true seekers who were Christian they have been leading the way, unknown to most brethren of the white cloth

Famous Christian Scientists


(from http://whychristianity.com)

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and Copernicus was urged to publish around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centred system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centred system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favourite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centred system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, he saw his system as concerning the issue of how the Bible should be interpreted.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted was to see his philosophy adopted as standard Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding from the Bible God's plan for history. He did a lot of work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gasses, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, "for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels."... As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
The son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but has led to so much in our lifestyles today which depend on them (including computers and telephone lines and so Web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced upon him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. The Sandemanians originated from Presbyterians who had rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

Page 1 ONLY

[Cactus]

Err...when was evolution a "science" anyway? Evolution is a theory, not a science. Now I didn't reply just to tell you this, I wanted to ask if you are here for any particular reason, trying to convert us from our "heathen" beliefs are you?

However it would be interesting if there was some you know, modern day people on that list!

Christian scientists have such an advantage over others

What others, other people. Who? Other Christians? I think it is unfair to say that any one denomination has an advantage over any other and more so I think that salvation is available for anyone, even a atheist could be "saved" based on what they DO know. However Christians in general have the advantage of a map down a narrow road... So can you please explain what is the "advantage"? I would love to know. Funny how mankind has got along for nearly 2 centuries without it!

[zoegirl]

Cactus, there ARE modern day Christian scientists, check out www.asa3.org The American scientific affiliation is a fellowship of Christian scientists, not to mention Rich, the owner of this site.

[Davidjayjordan]

My motivation, SURE, but do give yours, as in a real debate both sides can be asked the same question. Yet I thought we were HERE for all the same reasons... to inspire FAITH, rational scientific FAITH in a rational scientific Lord who created all things.

I love science because it deals with truths that are proveable and useable just like real FAITH is supposed to be used and never fails when we use it properly. I prefer exactness also rather than the loose literary dissection that most Christian denominations get into.

I have no denomination as I am merely a Christian missionary ever since university graduation in Science. Jesus didn;t have a denomination, other than Christian, so lets talk about Him and His Science. Amen...

And lets get into details rather than labeling and word twisting. Lets look for principles rather denominational word definitions etc etc...

All the best in our scientific discoveries.

[zoegirl]

David,
SImple question.

Would you regard a Christian scientist to holds to Old Earth/Progressive creationist to be part of your "true science"?

Or would you, like so mnay others that have come here in the past, call us to repent to YEC and *really* be a true scientist

[BavarianWheels]

David,
SImple question.

Would you regard a Christian scientist to holds to Old Earth/Progressive creationist to be part of your "true science"?

Or would you, like so mnay others that have come here in the past, call us to repent to YEC and *really* be a true scientist

Heh...I would conclude the latter.
.
.

[Davidjayjordan]

David,
SImple question.

Would you regard a Christian scientist to holds to Old Earth/Progressive creationist to be part of your "true science"?

Or would you, like so mnay others that have come here in the past, call us to repent to YEC and *really* be a true scientist

Simple question simple answer.

True Science is true science simply because it is true, it isn't subjective. Science is objective.

If you think progressive creationism is the truth, so be it. If it helps you deal with life, so be it. Your choice, your responsibility.

It obviously doesn;t effect your salvation one iota, although believeing in creation science would certainly enhance your FAITH, if it came from a serious and deep study of biology and history.

I like miraculous science because it makes sense mathematically, physic-ally, scripturally, and logically, besides the fact that I know the power of miracles by having been a missionary for forty some years.

If you don;t like it, no problem, I shall try to present evidence contrary to your belief system, and you are free to try the opposite. That's science.

I like tried and proven science that is useful and has a purpose and works for all.

Whatever the at least you and I are in agreement that the Lord created ALL SCIENCES.

You will have trouble explaining how all his physical laws changed into what they are today, whereas I can simply and logically state , that no law has changed, and all laws of physics have stayed the same since CREATION. But if you know when gravity didn;t apply, or any of the other laws, do present your evidence. the floor is yours

IHS

David

[Davidjayjordan]

Heh...I would conclude the latter.
.
.[/quote]


Wheels you conclusions are yours, feel free to keep whatever ones you want or feel comfortable with. In a real debate, in real science, facts and observations are brought forth to soldify one theory or another.

So do explain how the Lord or whatever your creative force is, slowly developed all the homeostasis of all the laws of nature and physics, over time.

Or did not the Lord create the four forces and the laws of physics. Were they ominpresent before the Beginning or inherrant in the first bang or second bang or developed after a few more bangs.

I would suggest that the Lord created all forces and laws of physics at one time from the BEGINNING. And didn;t create them slowly to finnally balance out the way they are NOW. But dfo go ahead and prove me or us wrong, with your reasoned explanation of slow creation of the laws of physics and nature, and creativity.

[zoegirl]

Ah, but there is a difference between saying that He cretaed the FORCES versus the MATTER. I do not disagree with the idea that when He created gravity and other forces, He did so immediately.

My disagerement comes with those that insist that the evidence points to when He created the matter. To be honest, I am weary of debate right now, so I am happy with leaving at agreeing to disagree.

I only wanted to get your statement concerning what you considered "true science". I agree that science is objective, but then again, all truth is God's truth. God can reveal truth about His creation to all people, whether CHristian or atheists, could He not? It is just absolutely wonderful to *be* a CHristian and be able to study His work. And yes ,I do thihk He blesses the work. But He chooses to reveal information in HIS time. THere have been plenty of agnostics who have discovered cures, medicines...and these endeavors are no less real or true than those discovered by CHristians.

My only contention is with your statment about faith, as if I would grow in my faith if only I would go about a *serious* study (as if I haven't ) and accept YEC. BUt that is nothing new and I also don't need to debate that. It is just standard YEC bullet points.

[BavarianWheels]

Heh...I would conclude the latter.
.
.

Wheels you conclusions are yours, feel free to keep whatever ones you want or feel comfortable with. In a real debate, in real science, facts and observations are brought forth to soldify one theory or another.[/quote]

...interesting because you have yet to substanciate anything you're promoted thus far...except by theory and empty debate.
.
.

[Davidjayjordan]

Zoegirl, I can see why you are tired of trying to explain slow evolution via slow creation or whatever your theory is.

For again I would suggest to you that energy and the laws of physics did not exist before matter. Energy and matter are bound together via Einsteins simple equation and that at the speed of light. And if you didn't know it the speed of light was set by the Lord as a boundary.


Light speed was made inconjunction at the same time as the distances to the Sun and planetary distances. It is not at random, but was set exactly at its speed harmonically.

The laws of physics did not come first and then latter on matter came into existence. To have the laws of physics you need matter, and matter and the laws that govern matter came simultaneously. Surely you can understand this.

The laws of physics and forces did not evolve slowly with time with slow evolution of slow matter changes etc. etc.... there is zero proof for such a wild theory. They occurred simulataneously together. matter and spirit or energy and the laws that govern them.

So skirting the issue Zoegirl by saying the laws of physics occurred before the creation of matter is so contrary to itself that surely this is one reason why you are so tired.

try making a cohesive Unified Field Theory that is ture and pit everything togetherr and you will be able to be rejunvenated..... and a whole lot less tired. In My Opinion

[zoegirl]

Zoegirl, I can see why you are tired of trying to explain slow evolution via slow creation or whatever your theory is.

For again I would suggest to you that energy and the laws of physics did not exist before matter. Energy and matter are bound together via Einsteins simple equation and that at the speed of light. And if you didn't know it the speed of light was set by the Lord as a boundary.

Light speed was made inconjunction at the same time as the distances to the Sun and planetary distances. It is not at random, but was set exactly at its speed harmonically.

The laws of physics did not come first and then latter on matter came into existence. To have the laws of physics you need matter, and matter and the laws that govern matter came simultaneously. Surely you can understand this.

The laws of physics and forces did not evolve slowly with time with slow evolution of slow matter changes etc. etc.... there is zero proof for such a wild theory. They occurred simulataneously together. matter and spirit or energy and the laws that govern them.

So skirting the issue Zoegirl by saying the laws of physics occurred before the creation of matter is so contrary to itself that surely this is one reason why you are so tired.

try making a cohesive Unified Field Theory that is ture and pit everything togetherr and you will be able to be rejunvenated..... and a whole lot less tired. In My Opinion

YOu STILL misunderstand me. I a not meaning matter in the sense of protons/elements, etc. I am meaning the timeline of when God created the universe, ie the days. I have no problem with matter and the forces that govern them being made in conjunction with one another. I am simply not YEC iwth regards to when He created the planets, animals, plants, water, etc, the different forms of matter.

OEC does not contradict basic observational science. In fact, YEC does this, insisting that light was created in transition, or that the univese is only 6000 years old, etc.

I am not skirting the issue, you are bringing up issues that I have no issues with

[zoegirl]

david,

I am just very very curious. What doctrine/denomination do you follow? I think you have said that you are non-denominational but even non-den lean towards one doctrine or another.