why reject christianity

[Subduction Zone]

I get the funny rating and creative rating a lot. Some of it from posters who are also mods. In fact, I learned to use the creative rating from a poster who is a mod. Are they going to ban themselves, too?

Mods can learn from their errors. When was the last time one used that against you?

Don't worry. I'll be starting another project soon which will take up a lot of time. I probably will be gone for months. I thought the project would have started already, but since it hasn't I have stuck around such as the GMO foods debate we've been having. History has shown that one can't always trust what scientists have said to be safe or how things such as the universe and earth originated .

The age of the Earth is beyond debate. There is no evidence against the 4.55 billion years age that it has.

Your mistake is to follow people that have sworn not to use the scientific method, making them non-scientists when it comes to the creation myth. By the way, all major discoveries in the sciences have come about by those using what you call "atheist science". Have you ever wondered about that?

 

[james bond]

No it doesn't. When has science told us that a human can walk on water? How does science (not atheist and not theist) just science study the resurrection? I mean, they are still trying to "catch ghosts" as if finding ghosts will some how prove god somehow. Science found out the world was not flat. Science also found out that fits and demons were seizures and neurons acting up.

Humans can't walk on water unless they're magicians. Then it is an illusion. The only person to walk on water was Jesus as the Bible states in three of the Gospels. Again, the difference is atheist science vs creation science.

The universe has no boundaries. It's not an atheist claim; it's a fact.

I don't think it's a fact. Atheist scientists only think the universe is expanding "equally" from observation. Thus, they are able to estimate the age of the universe. However, some have found that there are objects in the most distant part of the universe that is older than 13.7 billion years. These scientists think the universe is really 15.8 billion years old. Expect to see the change made to the science books when the James Webb telescope goes online. What they base it on is the speed of light and shifts in light waves. Creation scientists think the universe isn't uniform and that there are dense and thinner areas in the universe. Thus, speed of light isn't constant throughout space. SOL travels slower in dense material such as water and would travel faster when going through less dense parts of space. That's not to say SOL is not constant. SOL remains constant.

Problem is Christians (not all theists mind you) don't seem to understand their religion is a human religion not a universe one. They try to make sense of the universe by the little interpretations they develop in the minimal of a hundred years. Then convinced more than the scientists that they have the answers to the afterlife when spirituality gives you faith and hope but certainty?

Christianity may be a human religion, but the Bible is God's word, so it is universal and transcends time and space.

Science has not yet dictated we can see and interpret things we have not yet experienced nor influenced by.



How does science still from science? Volcanoes, dinosaurs, etc would exist regardless of god's existence (in our minds and hearts not in reality) or not. Science (the study of the natural not spiritual) world is godless.

Science: the study of the natural world

You have to come up with another word than atheist scientists and theists scientist. Both scientist could be atheist or theists and it doesn't affect the study of the natural world. I can't think in generalizations and bias like that.



But is that what I'm supposed to believe as an atheist?

Is that a default to being an atheists to believe in non-supernatural oriented science?

Last point first. I don't know what you see as your worldview, but your worldview exists because you exist. So what you are supposed to believe is that which you filter as knowledge and truth. Even a baby or child who does not understand knowledge and truth is able to ascertain their worldview. Further evidence of God. That said, if you do not believe in the supernatural or the Bible, then you would not have God exist in this world of yours while he exists in mine. So, does that mean that he doesn't exist or does exist? The answer to that depends on where you place your faith. I would say that all worldviews are based on some type of faith.

That's the whole point. Volcanoes, dinosaurs, etc. would not exist regardless. Even the late Stephen Hawking tried to ascertain why something is greater than nothing. According to his calculations, there should be no universe. Later, he thought there were multiple universes with no evidence.

I won't argue semantics as it is a waste of time. I'll continue to call it as I see it. It's creation science vs atheist science and our world was formed through catastrophism than uniformitarianism. Otherwise, internet atheists will imply one is religion while the other is science. They're actually both science and religion.

 

[james bond]

Mods can learn from their errors. When was the last time one used that against you?


The age of the Earth is beyond debate. There is no evidence against the 4.55 billion years age that it has.

Your mistake is to follow people that have sworn not to use the scientific method, making them non-scientists when it comes to the creation myth. By the way, all major discoveries in the sciences have come about by those using what you call "atheist science". Have you ever wondered about that?

Never. Why do you persist in this? Do you want me banned? Just because I'm banned doesn't mean you win the argument ha ha. It just goes to show that your arguments are lacking.

Beyond debate? I guess you haven't read the latest in that some scientists think the universe is 15.8 billion years old. They also examined the farthest reaches of space and found that those planets and star systems are older than 13.7 billion years old. I think the estimates will change to 15.8 billion years old when the James Webb telescope is operable. This would affect the age of the Earth and you'll be wrong.

You used the word "myth" and it doesn't mean lie. Look up what CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien said about using myths. How can creation be a lie when it isn't even considered? Just because atheist scientists ignore creation does not make it not true; It usually is ignored only in origins science. Today's discoveries come from atheist science because they get the majority of funding from corporations and government and only their work is accepted by peer review. My thinking is creation science will be taught in Christian private schools in addition to evolution. This way creation could grow as more creation scientists enter the mainstream. However, they will still face discrimination in funding unless these creation scientists start achieving breakthroughs to help the corporation and government. Who knows? If these creation scientists achieve greatness, then the teaching could spread to public schools without the religion. It would be a paradigm shift.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Humans can't walk on water unless they're magicians. Then it is an illusion. The only person to walk on water was Jesus as the Bible states in three of the Gospels. Again, the difference is atheist science vs creation science.



I don't think it's a fact. Atheist scientists only think the universe is expanding "equally" from observation. Thus, they are able to estimate the age of the universe. However, some have found that there are objects in the most distant part of the universe that is older than 13.7 billion years. These scientists think the universe is really 15.8 billion years old. Expect to see the change made to the science books when the James Webb telescope goes online. What they base it on is the speed of light and shifts in light waves. Creation scientists think the universe isn't uniform and that there are dense and thinner areas in the universe. Thus, speed of light isn't constant throughout space. SOL travels slower in dense material such as water and would travel faster when going through less dense parts of space. That's not to say SOL is not constant. SOL remains constant.



Christianity may be a human religion, but the Bible is God's word, so it is universal and transcends time and space.



Last point first. I don't know what you see as your worldview, but your worldview exists because you exist. So what you are supposed to believe is that which you filter as knowledge and truth. Even a baby or child who does not understand knowledge and truth is able to ascertain their worldview. Further evidence of God. That said, if you do not believe in the supernatural or the Bible, then you would not have God exist in this world of yours while he exists in mine. So, does that mean that he doesn't exist or does exist? The answer to that depends on where you place your faith. I would say that all worldviews are based on some type of faith.

That's the whole point. Volcanoes, dinosaurs, etc. would not exist regardless. Even the late Stephen Hawking tried to ascertain why something is greater than nothing. According to his calculations, there should be no universe. Later, he thought there were multiple universes with no evidence.

I won't argue semantics as it is a waste of time. I'll continue to call it as I see it. It's creation science vs atheist science and our world was formed through catastrophism than uniformitarianism. Otherwise, internet atheists will imply one is religion while the other is science. They're actually both science and religion.

Let's just concentrate on your major mistake. All of the scientists that you admire used "atheist science". Newton used "atheist science" for his laws of motion. He does not invoke a god at all even though he was a Christian, that same applies to Galileo, Copernicus, Mendel, etc. None of those Christians invoked god in their work. Their methodology is very similar to that of modern day scientists that are atheists. Even the few real scientists at AiG and other creationist sources where they have to promise not to use the scientific method used the scientific method when they made actual discoveries, making their actual work "atheist science".

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Humans can't walk on water unless they're magicians. Then it is an illusion. The only person to walk on water was Jesus as the Bible states in three of the Gospels. Again, the difference is atheist science vs creation science.

Science is science. Creation science wouldn't be called science if it does not study the natural world without supernatural (and any other) bias to influence interpretation of theories came up with.

How does creation-science support jesus walking on water? (People flying with wings for that matter)?

I don't think it's a fact. Atheist scientists only think the universe is expanding "equally" from observation. Thus, they are able to estimate the age of the universe. However, some have found that there are objects in the most distant part of the universe that is older than 13.7 billion years. These scientists think the universe is really 15.8 billion years old. Expect to see the change made to the science books when the James Webb telescope goes online. What they base it on is the speed of light and shifts in light waves. Creation scientists think the universe isn't uniform and that there are dense and thinner areas in the universe. Thus, speed of light isn't constant throughout space. SOL travels slower in dense material such as water and would travel faster when going through less dense parts of space. That's not to say SOL is not constant. SOL remains constant.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around calling creation science a science. The supernatural is not part of the natural world, as most religions say. It is separate in many abrahamic worldviews.

Christianity may be a human religion, but the Bible is God's word, so it is universal and transcends time and space.

I have no clue how the bible can be the world of god. I understand how people can have the spirit of god within them. But a book??

Last point first. I don't know what you see as your worldview, but your worldview exists because you exist. So what you are supposed to believe is that which you filter as knowledge and truth. Even a baby or child who does not understand knowledge and truth is able to ascertain their worldview. Further evidence of God. That said, if you do not believe in the supernatural or the Bible, then you would not have God exist in this world of yours while he exists in mine. So, does that mean that he doesn't exist or does exist? The answer to that depends on where you place your faith. I would say that all worldviews are based on some type of faith.

He (she and it and they) do not exist.

You never asked me my worldview just told me I wasn't aware of my atheist religion but never explained how that relates to me based on the word atheist.

That's the whole point. Volcanoes, dinosaurs, etc. would not exist regardless. Even the late Stephen Hawking tried to ascertain why something is greater than nothing. According to his calculations, there should be no universe. Later, he thought there were multiple universes with no evidence.

Interesting.

I won't argue semantics as it is a waste of time. I'll continue to call it as I see it. It's creation science vs atheist science and our world was formed through catastrophism than uniformitarianism. Otherwise, internet atheists will imply one is religion while the other is science. They're actually both science and religion.

Well, I have to come back to this when I get off work in a few.

There is no such thing as atheist science.

There is just science.

Scientists (theist, pagan, whatever), have many theories of how the earth was created and how people evolved. It has nothing to do with religion.

There is no atheist religion. I honestly can't figure how you can find atheism as a practice of worship and tradition of something(s) or someone(s). All religions that do not have a god you can consider an atheist religion. It's not semantics. If you use the right word, the conversation would make more sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Never. Why do you persist in this? Do you want me banned? Just because I'm banned doesn't mean you win the argument ha ha. It just goes to show that your arguments are lacking.

No, I would like to see you change your ways. I am not perfect, I have to tone myself down at times. Perhaps you should consider to do the same.

Beyond debate? I guess you haven't read the latest in that some scientists think the universe is 15.8 billion years old. They also examined the farthest reaches of space and found that those planets and star systems are older than 13.7 billion years old. I think the estimates will change to 15.8 billion years old when the James Webb telescope is operable. This would affect the age of the Earth and you'll be wrong.

Please note, I was speaking of the age of the Earth. What scientists think that the Big Bang occurred more than 13.7 billion years ago? Odds are that you got your info from an AiG article where they misunderstood the science, that occurs quite often. Please provide a valid (that means no creationist sources) link that supports your claim.

You used the word "myth" and it doesn't mean lie. Look up what CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien said about using myths. How can creation be a lie when it isn't even considered? Just because atheist scientists ignore creation does not make it not true; It usually is ignored only in origins science. Today's discoveries come from atheist science because they get the majority of funding from corporations and government and only their work is accepted by peer review. My thinking is creation science will be taught in Christian private schools in addition to evolution. This way creation could grow as more creation scientists enter the mainstream. However, they will still face discrimination in funding unless these creation scientists start achieving breakthroughs to help the corporation and government. Who knows? If these creation scientists achieve greatness, then the teaching could spread to public schools without the religion. It would be a paradigm shift.

I really don't care what their definition was. We know that there was no worldwide flood. That story is a myth. You can call it a "lie" or you can call it a morality tale. The latter makes it still useful to Christians.

By the way, you tacitly admit that you are wrong every time you use the phrase "atheist science". Since famous Christians used it that is a misnomer on your part and an insult to actual scientists that were or are Christians. Please try not to break the Ninth Commandment. As a Christian this should be important to you. There is no such thing as "creation science". When your scientists have to swear not to use the scientific method they are no longer scientists.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Humans can't walk on water unless they're magicians. Then it is an illusion. The only person to walk on water was Jesus as the Bible states in three of the Gospels. Again, the difference is atheist science vs creation science.



I don't think it's a fact. Atheist scientists only think the universe is expanding "equally" from observation. Thus, they are able to estimate the age of the universe. However, some have found that there are objects in the most distant part of the universe that is older than 13.7 billion years. These scientists think the universe is really 15.8 billion years old. Expect to see the change made to the science books when the James Webb telescope goes online. What they base it on is the speed of light and shifts in light waves. Creation scientists think the universe isn't uniform and that there are dense and thinner areas in the universe. Thus, speed of light isn't constant throughout space. SOL travels slower in dense material such as water and would travel faster when going through less dense parts of space. That's not to say SOL is not constant. SOL remains constant.



Christianity may be a human religion, but the Bible is God's word, so it is universal and transcends time and space.



Last point first. I don't know what you see as your worldview, but your worldview exists because you exist. So what you are supposed to believe is that which you filter as knowledge and truth. Even a baby or child who does not understand knowledge and truth is able to ascertain their worldview. Further evidence of God. That said, if you do not believe in the supernatural or the Bible, then you would not have God exist in this world of yours while he exists in mine. So, does that mean that he doesn't exist or does exist? The answer to that depends on where you place your faith. I would say that all worldviews are based on some type of faith.

That's the whole point. Volcanoes, dinosaurs, etc. would not exist regardless. Even the late Stephen Hawking tried to ascertain why something is greater than nothing. According to his calculations, there should be no universe. Later, he thought there were multiple universes with no evidence.

I won't argue semantics as it is a waste of time. I'll continue to call it as I see it. It's creation science vs atheist science and our world was formed through catastrophism than uniformitarianism. Otherwise, internet atheists will imply one is religion while the other is science. They're actually both science and religion.

I do believe the supernatural exist. I dont believe gods.

Science is the study of the natueal world. When you say athiest science you are implying that god is absent from the study of the natural world. Creationist science I assume means the opposite. These arent really scientific terms; so, if you want me and others to understand you, vary your vabulary to ease communication over basics. (If english is your first language)

I honestly forgot what youre trying to prove to me. Your words are throwing me off to your points.

In a short sentence or two what is your point and what is your position of that point?

 

[Axe Elf]

Axe Elf said...

Axe Elf said...

Axe Elf said...

Dude, I don't know how or why you did it, but you have "quoted" me three times--when I have not even posted anything previously in this thread. So I don't know who you are quoting, or why it's being attributed to me, but I'm getting the notifications for it, and it's annoying, so cut it out.

 

[james bond]

Let's just concentrate on your major mistake. All of the scientists that you admire used "atheist science". Newton used "atheist science" for his laws of motion. He does not invoke a god at all even though he was a Christian, that same applies to Galileo, Copernicus, Mendel, etc. None of those Christians invoked god in their work. Their methodology is very similar to that of modern day scientists that are atheists. Even the few real scientists at AiG and other creationist sources where they have to promise not to use the scientific method used the scientific method when they made actual discoveries, making their actual work "atheist science".

Your mistake. Atheists are wrong again. Newton used creation science since he believed in creation. Of course, he didn't discuss God because of God of the gaps. Galileo, Copernicus, Mendel, too, were operating from the belief in creation. There wasn't anything to ban God, the supernatural or the Bible beliefs. Where it drew the line was God of the gaps. God of the gaps was a warning to Christian scientists to not use God to demonstrate their hypothesis. As I explained several times before, the difference usually comes when discussing origins.

 

[james bond]

Dude, I don't know how or why you did it, but you have "quoted" me three times--when I have not even posted anything previously in this thread. So I don't know who you are quoting, or why it's being attributed to me, but I'm getting the notifications for it, and it's annoying, so cut it out.

Fixed.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Beyond debate? I guess you haven't read the latest in that some scientists think the universe is 15.8 billion years old. They also examined the farthest reaches of space and found that those planets and star systems are older than 13.7 billion years old. I think the estimates will change to 15.8 billion years old when the James Webb telescope is operable. This would affect the age of the Earth and you'll be wrong.

How would pushing the age of the universe back make the earth older? Would it make you or me older?

How can creation be a lie when it isn't even considered?

Science has no reason to consider creationism, at least not yet.No finding to date is better explained by a supernatural hypothesis.

Just because atheist scientists ignore creation does not make it not true

Agreed, assuming that by atheist science you mean science.

Note that science isn't in the business of disproving religious beliefs. It's job is observe the observable and explain it. So naturally it ignores creationism, especially in the light of the failure of the Discovery Institute research staff to accomplish any of their goal.

Who knows? If these creation scientists achieve greatness, then the teaching could spread to public schools without the religion. It would be a paradigm shift.

If they achieve greatness, then that is because they have made a contribution to the scientific literature, which then becomes part of mainstream science, and will become part of science curricula.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Today's discoveries come from atheist science because they get the majority of funding from corporations and government

Of course they get the majority of funding.

People invest their money where they expect it to pay dividends. Science has paid off richly. The money that went into the Discovery Institute's research budget returned nothing to its funding sources or the world.

Put it this way: There are two drilling companies on the stock market. One has struck oil repeatedly and has made its investors wealthy. The other has never found any oil or generated a nickel in revenue.

Which gets your investment dollars?

Do yourself a favor and answer that question, note how it applies to funding for mainstream science and intelligent design research, and ask yourself if you really believe that the ID people are being unfairly underfunded by government, which is responsible to taxpayers to allocate public funds responsibly, and industry, which is in the business of generating profit. Recognize that this is exactly how it should be until the ID people generate something of interest, and stop implying that there is unfair discrimination there.

Sure, there's discrimination, but it is rational, just as your choice to invest in the oil company with a profitable track record would be a rational form of discrimination.

Incidentally, what would you say is the difference between a correct idea and an incorrect one? I'd say that the former can be shown to correlate with reality, and can be used to correctly predict and at times control outcomes. One oil company keeps finding oil with its idea of how to find oil, and the other repeatedly fails with its. Who's right? Who's wrong?

Now apply that reasoning to mainstream science, which keeps hitting the jackpot, and creation research, which has been sterile to date.

... and only their work is accepted by peer review

Peer review referees have standards for what is published. A study needs to be properly designed and executed, and it needs to generate results considered original (or confirmatory) and significant. When the likes of Behe, Meyer, and Axe do legitimate science according to the standards of the scientific community, their papers are published in respected journals, although one of Meyer's papers slipped in the back door due to some sleight of hand, a paper that presumably would have been rejected.

Of course, none of that supports the ID hypothesis. It's just more work on

However, they ["creation scientists"] still face discrimination in funding unless these creation scientists start achieving breakthroughs to help the corporation and government.

That's a reasonable prediction. If they can generate any quality science that supports creationism, then they deserve to be funded, heard and read. Until then, they still need to demonstrate that their work has value to attract investment dollars from sources other than the Discovery Institute.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Newton used creation science since he believed in creation.

Yes, and he went to a creation university because he believed in creation, and rode on creation horses because he believed in creation, ate creation apples because he believed in creation, and was eventually buried in a creation grave or tomb because he believed in creation. That's how it works. Once you believe in creation, everything you have and do is due to that. Your science becomes creation science.

Newton lived on the cusp of modernity, with one foot in the old world (he was an alchemist) and one in the new world (mathematician and scientist).

His mathematics and science are exactly what an atheist might have developed, and which atheists today accept as valid, important, and useful.

His alchemy is considered pseudoscience, and of course, was sterile, the fate of every wrong idea.

God of the gaps was a warning to Christian scientists to not use God to demonstrate their hypothesis.

God of the gaps is not a warning. It describes the phenomenon of unknown processes being attributed to gods, and that that unknown has largely been filled in, leaving ever more narrow gaps for gods to fit into.

Once, when the apparent movement of the sun through the sky was inexplicable, it was attributed to Apollo in his chariot pulling it. Now, no gods are needed to account for sunrise and sunset.

Once, when thunder and lightning were inexplicable, they were explained as warring among the gods, or the work of Thor. Now, no gods are needed there, either.

But god was still needed to account for the universe and the diversity of life on it. Then came the Standard Model in cosmology and Darwin's theory in biology, and gods were not needed to account for the evolution of matter or life. The gaps in understanding have become quite narrow - essentially, the two origins problems - the origin of the Big Bang and the origin of the first cell, and believers have had to narrow their focus accordingly. Now, they mostly invoke God as the source of these two germs or seeds.

That's what the term god of the gaps refers to. It's not a warning to scientists to not mention God as you seem to imply.

We were just discussing Newton, who never invoked a god in his work until he reached the limits of his knowledge. The following is from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and is a nice illustration of god of the gaps thinking from Newton, who clearly didn't feel the need to keep gods out of his work until they were needed - the same attitude modern scientist hold:

Spoiler

Newton's law of gravity enables you to calculate the force of attraction between any two objects. If you introduce a third object, then each one attracts the other two, and the orbits they trace become much harder to compute. Add another object, and another, and another, and soon you have the planets in our solar system. Earth and the Sun pull on each other, but Jupiter also pulls on Earth, Saturn pulls on Earth, Mars pulls on Earth, Jupiter pulls on Saturn, Saturn pulls on Mars, and on and on.

Newton feared that all this pulling would render the orbits in the solar system unstable. His equations indicated that the planets should long ago have either fallen into the Sun or flown the coop, leaving the Sun, in either case, devoid of planets. Yet the solar system, as well as the larger cosmos, appeared to be the very model of order and durability. So Newton, in his greatest work, the Principia, concludes that God must occasionally step in and make things right:

“The six primary Planets are revolv'd about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. . . . But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. . . . This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your mistake. Atheists are wrong again. Newton used creation science since he believed in creation. Of course, he didn't discuss God because of God of the gaps. Galileo, Copernicus, Mendel, too, were operating from the belief in creation. There wasn't anything to ban God, the supernatural or the Bible beliefs. Where it drew the line was God of the gaps. God of the gaps was a warning to Christian scientists to not use God to demonstrate their hypothesis. As I explained several times before, the difference usually comes when discussing origins.

Nope, Newton was not an idiot. You can't find god in any of his equations. He did not use god when he developed them. He used the scientific method, the same scientific method that is used today. Creationists (there is no such thing as "creation science") are required not to use the scientific method.

You make yourself look amazingly ignorant when you make such bogus and false claims. Just because a scientist believes in a god does not mean that he used that god in doing his work. Newton never assumed the Bible to be literally true no matter what. That is the error that the dolts that you listen to make. It is why they are no longer scientists, scientists do science. They use the scientific method. The scientific method says nothing about the existence or non-existence of gods. It is god neutral. "Atheist science" is god neutral. It does not assume that a god does not exist. But then it does not make the gross error that you do.

That is why YOU are always wrong when it comes to science. You just can't get god out of your work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, and he went to a creation university because he believed in creation, and rode on creation horses because he believed in creation, ate creation apples because he believed in creation, and was eventually buried in a creation grave or tomb because he believed in creation. That's how it works. Once you believe in creation, everything you have and do is due to that. Your science becomes creation science.

Newton lived on the cusp of modernity, with one foot in the old world (he was an alchemist) and one in the new world (mathematician and scientist).

His mathematics and science are exactly what an atheist might have developed, and which atheists today accept as valid, important, and useful.

His alchemy is considered pseudoscience, and of course, was sterile, the fate of every wrong idea.



God of the gaps is not a warning. It describes the phenomenon of unknown processes being attributed to gods, and that that unknown has largely been filled in, leaving ever more narrow gaps for gods to fit into.

Once, when the apparent movement of the sun through the sky was inexplicable, it was attributed to Apollo in his chariot pulling it. Now, no gods are needed to account for sunrise and sunset.

Once, when thunder and lightning were inexplicable, they were explained as warring among the gods, or the work of Thor. Now, no gods are needed there, either.

But god was still needed to account for the universe and the diversity of life on it. Then came the Standard Model in cosmology and Darwin's theory in biology, and gods were not needed to account for the evolution of matter or life. The gaps in understanding have become quite narrow - essentially, the two origins problems - the origin of the Big Bang and the origin of the first cell, and believers have had to narrow their focus accordingly. Now, they mostly invoke God as the source of these two germs or seeds.

That's what the term god of the gaps refers to. It's not a warning to scientists to not mention God as you seem to imply.

We were just discussing Newton, who never invoked a god in his work until he reached the limits of his knowledge. The following is from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and is a nice illustration of god of the gaps thinking from Newton, who clearly didn't feel the need to keep gods out of his work until they were needed - the same attitude modern scientist hold:

Spoiler

Newton's law of gravity enables you to calculate the force of attraction between any two objects. If you introduce a third object, then each one attracts the other two, and the orbits they trace become much harder to compute. Add another object, and another, and another, and soon you have the planets in our solar system. Earth and the Sun pull on each other, but Jupiter also pulls on Earth, Saturn pulls on Earth, Mars pulls on Earth, Jupiter pulls on Saturn, Saturn pulls on Mars, and on and on.

Newton feared that all this pulling would render the orbits in the solar system unstable. His equations indicated that the planets should long ago have either fallen into the Sun or flown the coop, leaving the Sun, in either case, devoid of planets. Yet the solar system, as well as the larger cosmos, appeared to be the very model of order and durability. So Newton, in his greatest work, the Principia, concludes that God must occasionally step in and make things right:

“The six primary Planets are revolv'd about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. . . . But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. . . . This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

As is pointed out so well here Newton invoked God only when he could not work out the answer. In other words when he did not understand his answer was roughly "I don't know, I guess that God did it." As pointed out we keep finding out how physics, biology, geology, cosmology, chemistry etc. work. The need to invoke a god keeps getting less and less frequent. And to date the claim "I don't know, I guess that God did it" has been repeated shown not to be the answer.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Newton applied his considerable intellectual talents to such "non-scientific" matters as alchemy and finding hidden messages in the Bible's text...and eventually gave up on them because he could not solve those problems at all...compared to his considerable success in contributing to optics, gravity, mathematics (calculus), and the problem of preventing counterfeiting the coinage of England.

 

[Pudding]

why many people reject christianity? is there a problem with the teachings and messages?

Looking at the history of many variations of christianity sects and the harm they had done to humanity still until today partially, it's no doubt many people would reject christianity. Another reason is that people didn't see convincing reasons to accept christianity.

the crucifixion of christ means nothing to them?

Probably, also may apply to a lot of other non-christianity religions' gods' sacrifice.

don't they like a religion based on love?

Many of Christianity sects' history and a lot of their teachings and messages does not imply love but hate.

many people want proof. but, if there was proof, ''believing'' would be an one-way street and faith would be pointless. if there was undeniable proof, how would we choose christ as our saviour?

Faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

If a specific interpretation of God from a specific sect exists, why can't he provides undeniable evidence to let people ''believing'' in an one-way street that he exists as a real being, instead he ask people to believe in him regardless there is no convincing evidence to support his existence? Especially when this God is omnipotent?

Why do we need to choose christ as our saviour before we have been convince he is indeed our saviour?

There was also no undeniable proof about the existence of many other religions' gods, does that mean you also accept all of them as your savior?
If you does not accept all of them as your saviour, please explain why you don't.

 

[james bond]

How would pushing the age of the universe back make the earth older? Would it make you or me older?

No, it's all relative. You and I would not age because one age is chronological while we are real time.

Science has no reason to consider creationism, at least not yet.No finding to date is better explained by a supernatural hypothesis.

Why not? It was assumed in the past and science still worked. Creation is more about origins science and that is the main disagreement. Creation better explains how living organisms developed and how the universe came to be. If we use atheist science, then the likelihood is no universe. Even Stephen Hawking admitted this.

Agreed, assuming that by atheist science you mean science.

Not when discussing origins. Did you ever see the youtube about origins theories?

Note that science isn't in the business of disproving religious beliefs. It's job is observe the observable and explain it. So naturally it ignores creationism, especially in the light of the failure of the Discovery Institute research staff to accomplish any of their goal.

Religion and science are opposite sides of the same coin. Science does a good job explaining what came after creation. Today's atheist science denies creation as origins science.

If they achieve greatness, then that is because they have made a contribution to the scientific literature, which then becomes part of mainstream science, and will become part of science curricula.

I said it was more difficult for Christian scientists to get funding for their projects if they use God, the supernatural and the Bible in their work. The areas with the most disagreement are geology, biology, paleontology and zoology. Thus, a creation scientist can't say they believe that a global flood caused the sedimentation strata.

Here's an article which includes few of today's scientists who happened to be Christian, so it isn't that there are none.

9 Groundbreaking Scientists Who Happened to Be Christians

 

[james bond]

Of course they get the majority of funding.

People invest their money where they expect it to pay dividends. Science has paid off richly. The money that went into the Discovery Institute's research budget returned nothing to its funding sources or the world.

Put it this way: There are two drilling companies on the stock market. One has struck oil repeatedly and has made its investors wealthy. The other has never found any oil or generated a nickel in revenue.

Which gets your investment dollars?

Do yourself a favor and answer that question, note how it applies to funding for mainstream science and intelligent design research, and ask yourself if you really believe that the ID people are being unfairly underfunded by government, which is responsible to taxpayers to allocate public funds responsibly, and industry, which is in the business of generating profit. Recognize that this is exactly how it should be until the ID people generate something of interest, and stop implying that there is unfair discrimination there.

Sure, there's discrimination, but it is rational, just as your choice to invest in the oil company with a profitable track record would be a rational form of discrimination.

Incidentally, what would you say is the difference between a correct idea and an incorrect one? I'd say that the former can be shown to correlate with reality, and can be used to correctly predict and at times control outcomes. One oil company keeps finding oil with its idea of how to find oil, and the other repeatedly fails with its. Who's right? Who's wrong?

Now apply that reasoning to mainstream science, which keeps hitting the jackpot, and creation research, which has been sterile to date.



Peer review referees have standards for what is published. A study needs to be properly designed and executed, and it needs to generate results considered original (or confirmatory) and significant. When the likes of Behe, Meyer, and Axe do legitimate science according to the standards of the scientific community, their papers are published in respected journals, although one of Meyer's papers slipped in the back door due to some sleight of hand, a paper that presumably would have been rejected.

Of course, none of that supports the ID hypothesis. It's just more work on



That's a reasonable prediction. If they can generate any quality science that supports creationism, then they deserve to be funded, heard and read. Until then, they still need to demonstrate that their work has value to attract investment dollars from sources other than the Discovery Institute.

I'm going to pass on this post because you're mixing or confusing intelligent design as in ID with creation science. AIG and ICR do not argue the same as Discovery Institute.

 

[pearl]

According to his calculations, there should be no universe. Later, he thought there were multiple universes with no evidence.

Guess its still pending;
Stephen Hawking submitted his final scientific paper just two weeks before he died, and it lays the theoretical groundwork for discovering a parallel universe.

Hawking, who passed away on Wednesday aged 76, was co-author to a mathematical paper which seeks proof of the "multiverse" theory, which posits the existence of many universes other than our own.

http://www.businessinsider.com/stephen-hawking-paper-from-just-before-he-died-could-find-new-universe-2018-3