Since I mentioned Christians who were Scientists I thought it would be nice if I included a few names. Here's some famous Scientists you may know. I've also heard that many astronauts that have orbited space come back stronger in their faith than when they left. What do they see up there that brings about this change?

John Philoponus late 6th Century Aristotle's early Christian critic
Hugh of St. Victor c. 1096-1141 theologian of science
Robert Grosseteste c. 1168-1253 reform-minded bishop-scientist
Roger Bacon c. 1220-1292 Doctor Mirabiles
Dietrich von Frieberg c. 1250-c. 1310 the priest who solved the mystery of the rainbow
Thomas Bradwardine c. 1290-1349 student of motion
Nicole Oresme c. 1320-1382 inventor of scientific graphic techniques
Nicholas of Cusa 1401-1464 grappler with infinity
Georgias Agricola 1495-1555 founder of metallurgy
Johannes Kepler 1571-1630 discoverer of the laws of planetary motion
Johannes Baptista van Helmont 1579-1644 founder of pneumatic chemistry and chemical physiology
Francesco Maria Grimaldi 1618-1663 discoverer of the diffraction of light Catholic
Blaise Pascal 1623-1662 mathematical prodigy and universal genius
Robert Boyle 1627-1691 founder of modern chemistry
John Ray 1627-1705 cataloger of British flora and fauna Calvinist (denomination?)
Isaac Barrow 1630-1677 Newton's teacher
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 1632-1723 discoverer of bacteria
Niels Seno 1638-1686 founder of geology
James Bradley 1693-1762 discoverer of the aberration of starlight
Ewald Georg von Kleist c. 1700-1748 inventor of the Leyden jar
Carolus Linnaeus 1707-1778 classifer of all living things
Leonhard Euler 1707-1783 the prolific mathematician
John Dalton 1766-1844 founder of modern atomic theory
Thomas Young 1773-1829 first to conduct a double-slit experiment with light
David Brewster 1781-1868 researcher of polarized light
William Buckland 1784-1856 geologist of the Noahic flood
Adem Sedgwick 1785-1873 geologist of the Cambrian
Augustin-Jean Fresnel 1788-1827 the physicist of light waves
Augustin Louis Cauchy 1789-1857 soulwinning mathematician
Michael Faraday 1791-1867 giant of electrical research
John Frederick William Herschel 1792-1871 cataloger of the Southern skies
Matthew Fontaine Maury 1806-1873 pathfinder of the seas
Philip Henry Gosse 1810-1888 popular naturalist
Asa Gray 1810-1888 influential botanist
James Dwight Dana 1813-1895 systematizer of minerology
George Boole 1815-1864 discoverer of pure mathematics
James Prescott Joule 1818-1889 originator of Joule's Law
John Couch Adams 1819-1892 codiscoverer of Neptune
George Gabriel Stokes 1819-1903 theorist of fluorescence
Gregor Mendel 1822-1884 pioneer in genetics
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin 1824-1907 physicist of thermodynammics
Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann 1829-1907 the non-Euclidean geometer behind relativity theory
James Clerk Maxwell 1831-1879 father of modern physics
Edward William Morley 1838-1923 Michelson's partner in measuring the speed of light
Pierre-Maurice-Marie Duhem 1861-1923 the physicist who recovered the science of the Middle Ages
Georges Lemaitre 1894-1966 the prist who showed us the universe is expanding
George Washington Carver c. 1864-1943 pioneer in chemurgy
Arthur Stanley Eddington 1882-1944 the astronomer who ruled stellar theory

That's atheistic science at work

No that’s Atheist selectively using science to prove what they believe, sound familiar? There is no connection between science and atheism. Scientists come from all different faiths. All the links I provided you were a Christian perspective of science showing that they’re not at odds with mainstream Christianity, just not the fundamentalist view of it.

I appreciate the link.

THEN READ IT! It is explained quite clearly why this sometimes occurs. I’ll give a reason, new volcanic flows picking up rocks from old ones, then not melting them enough to reset their clock. Now you have two different ages of rocks that may appear to be from the same eruption.

And again polonium halos are old news and have been explained for a decade. This is a waste of time but here’s a link. Link

Here’s one of my own. We know a great deal about our sun, more than we do about our own oceans, hence we know a great deal about other suns (stars). Their fusion processes are well understood. For a star to go supernova it must exhaust all its fuel, first hydrogen then helium. This takes billions of years. Christians don’t even question it when scientists say our sun will start to the switch to helium in about 2.5 billion years and die in 10. If we could calculate exactly how much hydrogen a sun had we could tell you the day a star would go nova almost like an atomic clock. How then have humans witnessed several suns go nova if they were all created 6000 years ago? Those were some fast burning stars; ours could go any day now huh.

I agree with this. As long as you're talking true Science here.

But I am a young earther. I do not believe in the billions of years at all. This is something that cannot be proven. One thing not talked about much is the fact that from a Christian POV God created the earth with age. It wasn't a baby earth but one with fully mature everything including humans.

When Mt St. Helens blew up the Scientists had to do some back tracking. I went to see this lopsided Volcano 15 years after it first blew. It was amazing even then to see what had happened even 15 years earlier. They said the whole thing became a mini labatory for scientists. One of the things they were watching were how the diff layers were being formed in Spirit Lake.

This lake was completely covered by all the huge trees surrounding it. The huge basin of water completely emptied as the lava and rocks rushed into it sending the water up for miles around bringing down trees by the sheer force and emptying back into the basin. When we were there it looked like a war zone for miles. New growth was just starting to sprout.

Anyway the trees brought down by this force of water were now completly covering the huge lake. You couldn't even see the water I don't think. These trees eventually completly submerged bit by bit, making diff layers.

One catastrophe, many layers is what happened. Before this they had always believed each layer meant a diff catastrophe with thousands/millions of years in between. This killed that theory. But it doesn't stop anything. They still use that theory to advance their thinking.

TA:



So you're saying the bible even says it has errors in it because you're reading the preface and it tells you so? First of all the preface (as Gid pointed out) is not the holy writ of God. Nor is the KJV for that matter.

Second, I agree the KJV has a few errors (nothing serious) so we're in agreement. But the KJV is not the original language of God's word.

There are NO errors in the original Hebrew and Greek. The KJV is just a revision of Hebrew and Greek. That's all. The errors contained are miniscule and have no bearing on the main ideas of what the scripture is teaching us.

God's word HAS no error in it, nor does God's word admit it does. I'd suggest you read Psalm 119 for reference to what the word of God says about the word of God. That is, if you're really interested in being educated on such matters .

I agree with Gid. Nice try. But it's still a strikeout.

Yes, SF, I know what you're saying..it's all too familiar. To me, Darwinian Evolution Theory is atheistic "science" masquerading as scientific fact.


Your use of the word "prove" is the kicker....Atheists believe there is no God; thus no Creator. They developed and use the Darwinian Evolution Theory as a means to that end. The end is to get others to believe as they do--there is no God; no Creator.

Adnauseum asks in the title of his article, how do JUsers feel about Dawkins? For beginners, I think he's insincere. If he's a true believer that God doesn't exist, then why isn't he busting his buns trying to prove it instead of writing books that razz guys like Pat Robertson? Exactly whose fancy is he tickling by saying things like "To be fair much of the Bible is not systematically evil.." What are we to garner from this---that only a small fraction of the Bible (like maybe Genesis)is systematically evil? This seems like a vain attempt to discredit Almighty God to me and for that I say, shame on him.

Have you ever noticed the fact that proponents of the belief system of Atheism have never proven there is no God or that He is not the Creator, yet this seems to go unmentioned?

What gauls me to no end is that it's most often these very proponents who refuse to allow the Creaton side of the debate in public schools. There is no freedom of inquiry, of investigation in order to learn the truth of the matter studied allowed. Why's that? Yet, they have 'freedom' to deny God as interpretated by the Christian religion.

I never said God's words contain error. You keep going around in circles. The text describes in details its origins and how it was done. It is clearly not an authentic representation of God's words. It is full of contradictory statements that you try to justify through a lengthy essays and round-about logic.

I am not going to quote here what it says, it is a 4 page document with amazingly honest representation of what happened before the Bible we now have reached the printing press.

It is not my intention to try to change your or anyone else's mind. I just wanted to point out a fact. You and others are free to ignore it or strike it out as you say.

Why do i want to point that out? Two reasons:

1-I believe that many here are honest believers in God. But they say things that actually undermine that God and their belief in Him based on shaky unsubstantiated statements by theologians. I just wanted to alert all to the problem. That is all. but everyone is certainly free to choose their own way.

2-Many unbelievers, or doubters, use what the current Bible say as a proof for doubting the existence of God and the reality of messengers, prophets and the message they delivered from God. They do that based on a document that is not a true representation of God or His message. I wanted to tell them dont judge based on a shaky document.

Lula/KFC

These two statements represent what i meant in #66. By saying that you play right in their hands. Darwin's theory have nothing to do with Atheism. It has existed for eons before Darwin. And you cant prove a negative. That is why they dont bother.

it is a logical fact that it is impossible to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on proving the positive. why do you think they say "innocent till proven guilty"? because no one can prove that someone didnt do somthing. you can only prove that someone did something.

when you say what you did they say no wonder you believe in God. If you say illogical or contradictory things, people will doubt ALL what you say.

It has everything to do with atheism. Darwinian Evolution Theory is based on the idea that macro-evolution can explain the entire natural world without God. Its entire premise is that there is no God....and

ThinkAloud, that is as negative as you can get.

and thanks for pointing that out. It is a negative because no one has ever seen anything evolve into anything else...nor have they come up with any positive evidence of transitional forms...nor are animals getting more and more complex over time.

Ape to man evolution theory isn't real science...that's why I call it atheistic "science".

I call it lies from Satan myself, but 'atheistic "science"' works too.

Have you read Johnathan Sarfati, "Exploding Stars point to Young earth" 1997? He gives an excellent argument against billions of years for the universe.

He explains the third stage remnants of supernovas are missing.

the first stage expands about 23 light years over a period of 300 years and then a blast wave forms. the 2nd stage expands to about 350 light years distance until it starts to lose energy over a period of time of 120,000 years. The 3rd stage expands to 1,500 light years over 6 millions years time.

Compared to 2,260 2nd stage and 5,000 3rd stage which supernova remnants should be observed from earth if the universe is billions of years old (earth time), only 200 second stage supernova remnants have been observed, and you guessed it zero 3rd stage Supernova remnants have been observed. If the universe is billions of years old, we should have observed about 5,000 3rd stage remnants.

I’ve never really understood the mindset of someone who when faced with the evidence that modern science presents us can still remain a young earth fundamentalist. I now understand, you simple don’t allow yourself to be faced with it. You ignore anything contrary to what you believe. I guess accepting everything on faith is what it takes.

Have you read Johnathan Sarfati, "Exploding Stars point to Young earth" 1997? He gives an excellent argument against billions of years for the universe. He explains the third stage remnants of supernovas are missing.

Mr. Safarti is a chemist who is employed as a writer for Answers in Genesis. There are books on the skunk ape more scientifically accurate than his. For one thing he’s a liar, there are third stage supernova remnants.

“One of the most important assertions that the YECs make is that there are no third-stage, i.e. SNRs in the radiative stage Indeed, the very presence of just one third-stage SNR would completely destroy the YEC argument for a young Universe, as the amount of time a SNR takes to reach this stage is way beyond anything that the YEC time scale allows.
So, are there any actual third-stage SNRs? There have been dozens of papers published over the last several decades examining and discussing actual radiative SNRs - quite an achievement considering how, according to YECs, they don't actually exist! Despite what the YECs say, radiative SNRs do actually exist. A brief reading of the relevant literature reveals the following Galactic SNRs that are in the radiative phase (and there are others):” Link

His own formula is based on 25 SN per millennia that he says shows the universe to be 6000 years old, actually his forula calculates to 11700 years. Plus we haven’t observed a SN for 300 years. And he knows that, he’s a smart fellow. Not to mention supergiants live a minimum of 10 million years so they would have to start dying the day they were created. I know, God created old supergiants. This isn’t science, it’s postulating and whenever that runs into a wall you just sit God on top of that wall and you keep on trucking.

Science and religion have to remain separate. Evolution is not a way to explain our beginnings without God; it’s a way to explain our beginnings in terms we can understand. It’s not atheistic or ant-God in any way. The processes that happen all around us appear to obey laws that we are capable of understanding. The more we look the more we understand but once you use God as a crutch to explain our world you might as we just stop and go home. Science has to stand on its own or its discoveries have no meaning. Even if science is just figuring out how God did it he obviously didn’t make that completely impossible. A class in Creation wouldn’t last a day. “See the person next to you and all those trees outside the window” God did that and we don’t know how, class dismissed. The only teaching left would involve the Bible and now you’re in church not a science class. Now you can say it’s blasphemy to even try to explain our universe in terms we can understand and we should just accept it as a miracle by God. But you can’t have it both ways. You must let science be science and God’s creation be God’s creation.

stubbyfinger posts:

I read the link that supposedly debunks Safarti's claim. Then I googled Safarti and read just as many debunkings of the debunker of Safarti.

A few years ago everyone was ga-ga over Stephen Dawking's black hole theory. Today he sees it differently. Get my drift?

If you want to believe, i.e. have faith, in cosmic Evolution theory, then explain how matter always existed; and then, how that matter by chance over billions of years developed into the universe. Now, that takes some incredibel faith! I choose to believe that God, as a reliable eye-witness to His own creation of all matter of the universe, and, as the principle Author of Genesis, knew what He was writing about when He used the Hebrew word "Yom".




What good is understanding our beginnings is that understanding is not true? Macro-Evolution is provably not true.

Yes, Jythier, we're talking the same language. While I defined the practical application, you defined the source.

stubbyfinger posts:


No, I can't agree. There can't be any conflict between science and religion becasue God is the source of all truth whether in the natural or material or in the spiritual sphere of man.

The conflict is only when the scientist who with his bit of pseudo scientific knowledge tries to use it to refute the unchangable laws of God as they apply to religion and morality.

I agree with ya Lula. True Science and Religion fit perfectly together. There is some mention of Science in the bible and it's been proven correctly stated. When we read scripture and see that "the earth hangs on nothing" and the earth described as "the circle of the earth." (both written a couple thousand years before this was discovered) we know that the bible's take on science is right on.