Christianity and Science coexisting with one another...
Options
BangEm_Bart
Members Posts: 9,503 ✭✭✭✭✭
Normally, I don't agree with watching the 700 club nor do I ever support their politically inaccurate and racist views to try and white wash Christianity and thwart it away to a white culture society. I actually stumbled across a well known astrophysicist on there named Dr. Hugh Ross and I agree 100% with what he says in how science actually supports Christianity. I still do studying outside of this but what are your views' on his theory? Can science support the advent of life in the bible?
I wish I could find a video of just the part I wanted to post after the false propaganda so bare with me...
Skip to the 29 min mark and just listen to Dr. Hugh Ross.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVuzSv7jYSA
I wish I could find a video of just the part I wanted to post after the false propaganda so bare with me...
Skip to the 29 min mark and just listen to Dr. Hugh Ross.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVuzSv7jYSA Comments
-
science also supports alot of islam, buddhism, hinduism etc.. so what?
-
science also supports alot of islam, buddhism, hinduism etc.. so what?
Same ? . Just don't understand how religion and science don't coexist. I don't study Islam or hinduism though. -
BangEm_Bart wrote: »
oh aight i thought u were saying christianity is the true religion because it coexists with science.
hinduism is actually pretty interesting in that aspect
http://www.quora.com/What-are-some-co-incidences-of-Hindu-beliefs-and-science -
Yea I don't believe in funny looking elephants with 80 arms and them Indian ? are weird as ? but I never bash anyone for what they believe in. In fact, no Christian is suppose to nor are they suppose to bash ? . Let them live and be a better role model. ? , I'm ? . I'll read this later.
-
Spirituality is suppose to work with scientific understanding and philosophical viewpoint, but what makes religion bad when it becomes Stuck as the final truth and understanding. That's what becomes wrong with religion and the fact it's use from a political and economic frame makes it even worse than what it was intended for which was to explain the "Divine" and the "The Law of ? (Universe)" and how to work with it, but when we don't accept new information then that's what becomes the problem. Let's be like water both flexible and dilute any ills and ignorance.
-
BangEm_Bart wrote: »Normally, I don't agree with watching the 700 club nor do I ever support their politically inaccurate and racist views to try and white wash Christianity and thwart it away to a white culture society. I actually stumbled across a well known astrophysicist on there named Dr. Hugh Ross and I agree 100% with what he says in how science actually supports Christianity. I still do studying outside of this but what are your views' on his theory? Can science support the advent of life in the bible?
I wish I could find a video of just the part I wanted to post after the false propaganda so bare with me...
Skip to the 29 min mark and just listen to Dr. Hugh Ross.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVuzSv7jYSA
This is garbage. He says a very scientific statement about the universe then says, by referencing obscure verses , that the bible supports the big bang. Please, that's non-sense. The bible was obviously written by human authors who didn't even understand gravity and atomic theory much less big bang cosmology. Then he says humans are only a few thousand years old. At minimum, we're 100k years old as a species. This guy probably believes in Noah's Ark. Lmao.
Can science support religion? Well in a sense, science is the antithesis of religion. Its claims come from observable and testable evidence. Not through revelation. The bible, or any other holy text, should never be treated as a scientific piece of literature. -
He didn't say humans are a few thousand years old though. I have another video of him stating that when ? rested on the 7th day, noone knows how long that day was after Adam rested. Matterfact, days in the Hebrew context are different from days in the English context which was added in by King James. Everyone knows Christ wasn't born on Christmas. It's just days in which European scientist put into context with the bible.
What he's saying is that earth was created for a few billion years to support us and everything was created within this universe to support us. -
Even our planet only having 1 moon to keep our weather stable.
-
Same book to say that plant life existed before the sun and stars. We know the planet was star residue and Jupiter is a failed star and among other things that ? held the sun in the sky which is ? since we revolve around the sun
-
Ajackson17 wrote: »Same book to say that plant life existed before the sun and stars. We know the planet was star residue and Jupiter is a failed star and among other things that ? held the sun in the sky which is ? since we revolve around the sun
Just a correction."Nearly all scientists who study the formation of planets believe that Jupiter formed in a very different manner than stars form, so that calling Jupiter a 'failed star' is misleading. Stars form directly from the collapse of dense clouds of interstellar gas and dust. Because of rotation, these clouds form flattened disks that surround the central, growing stars. After the star has nearly reached its final mass, by accreting gas from the disk, the leftover matter in the disk is free to form planets.
"Jupiter is generally believed to have formed in a two-step process. First, a vast swarm of ice and rock 'planetesimals' formed. These comet-sized bodies collided and accumulated into ever-larger planetary embryos. Once an embryo became about as massive as ten Earths, its self-gravity became strong enough to pull in gas directly from the disk. During this second step, the proto-Jupiter gained most of its present mass (a total of 318 times the mass of the Earth). Soon thereafter, the disk gas was removed by the intense early solar wind, before Saturn could grow to a similar size."
Boss explains further that brown dwarfs may look like planets but they form like stars--that is, they collapse directly from a gas cloud, rather than building up in the disk around a star. Brown dwarfs lack sufficient mass to shine, so they might more fairly be described as "failed stars."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/i-have-heard-people-call/ -
The article contradicted itself.
-
Same book that tells us mary was a "? " yet we know through biology and life experience it takes a sperm cell to enter an egg, now had there have been no people on earth ok....but this is after humans existed...so I'm confused who's right religion or science??
-
Ajackson17 wrote: »The article contradicted itself.
How so? -
Same book that tells us mary was a "? " yet we know through biology and life experience it takes a sperm cell to enter an egg, now had there have been no people on earth ok....but this is after humans existed...so I'm confused who's right religion or science??
? does not need a sperm or even an egg to create anything he wants and the rules of science that he allows us to live by simply doesn't apply to him. ? does as he wills if he chooses to move with in the bounds of science he will if not he won't but his will will be done anyway -
Ajackson17 wrote: »Same book to say that plant life existed before the sun and stars. We know the planet was star residue and Jupiter is a failed star and among other things that ? held the sun in the sky which is ? since we revolve around the sun
Just a correction."Nearly all scientists who study the formation of planets believe that Jupiter formed in a very different manner than stars form, so that calling Jupiter a 'failed star' is misleading. Stars form directly from the collapse of dense clouds of interstellar gas and dust. Because of rotation, these clouds form flattened disks that surround the central, growing stars. After the star has nearly reached its final mass, by accreting gas from the disk, the leftover matter in the disk is free to form planets.
"Jupiter is generally believed to have formed in a two-step process. First, a vast swarm of ice and rock 'planetesimals' formed. These comet-sized bodies collided and accumulated into ever-larger planetary embryos. Once an embryo became about as massive as ten Earths, its self-gravity became strong enough to pull in gas directly from the disk. During this second step, the proto-Jupiter gained most of its present mass (a total of 318 times the mass of the Earth). Soon thereafter, the disk gas was removed by the intense early solar wind, before Saturn could grow to a similar size."
Boss explains further that brown dwarfs may look like planets but they form like stars--that is, they collapse directly from a gas cloud, rather than building up in the disk around a star. Brown dwarfs lack sufficient mass to shine, so they might more fairly be described as "failed stars."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/i-have-heard-people-call/
Never mind. It didn't contradict itself. -
Same book that tells us mary was a "? " yet we know through biology and life experience it takes a sperm cell to enter an egg, now had there have been no people on earth ok....but this is after humans existed...so I'm confused who's right religion or science??
? does not need a sperm or even an egg to create anything he wants and the rules of science that he allows us to live by simply doesn't apply to him. ? does as he wills if he chooses to move with in the bounds of science he will if not he won't but his will will be done anyway
I still go by that Joseph was the Yahshua father biologically. -
Nah.. "spirituality" and science yes
-
I Am Jay ? wrote: »Nah.. "spirituality" and science yes
I think pretty much every other religion has more in common with science than christianity does lol...
even islam has things in it that science agrees with.
and im not talking about people who were christian that just so happened to innovate. im talking straight up scientific correspondence in religious texts. -
I think pretty much every other religion has more in common with science than christianity does lol...
even islam has things in it that science agrees with.
and im not talking about people who were christian that just so happened to innovate. im talking straight up scientific correspondence in religious texts
From word of mouth I have heard this. From the Quaran, to the vedic texts, none of which I have read, but I need to. Look in to it tomorrow -
I Am Jay ? wrote: »Nah.. "spirituality" and science yes
I think pretty much every other religion has more in common with science than christianity does lol...
even islam has things in it that science agrees with.
and im not talking about people who were christian that just so happened to innovate. im talking straight up scientific correspondence in religious texts.
At one point, it was the Muslims preserving and progressing science while Christians were burning people at the stake, now that that the roles are reversed, they acting like they are the most noble. Fantasy and Science doesn't mix outside of science fiction novels. -
Once again, you're confusing Christians with Catholics. Stop it.
-
BangEm_Bart wrote: »Once again, you're confusing Christians with Catholics. Stop it.
Lmao. Learn your history my brother. Christians did as much slaughtering, and that includes in Europe. Btw. It was actually Catholics they were crucifying in the most. You must be talking about the Coptic Christians. You a Coptic Christian ? ? -
Protestants broke off from the Catholic church, but at one point in time they were one and the same, but still operate as almost as one and the same.
-
BangEm_Bart wrote: »Once again, you're confusing Christians with Catholics. Stop it.
Lmao. Learn your history my brother. Christians did as much slaughtering, and that includes in Europe. Btw. It was actually Catholics they were crucifying in the most. You must be talking about the Coptic Christians. You a Coptic Christian ? ?
I have no idea wtf you're talking about, no offense. Those European Catholics, republican conservative Christians and new zionist jews are a cult that work for the govt. My descendants are the real Hebrews and our ways are similar to the Ethiopian Christians who truly follow ? the right way without persecuting others. The ones that actually met Yeshua and made paintings of Him that were burned down, the ones that were crucified for believing in him or being black, the real Ysraelites from the tribes of Judah and descendants of David.
Continue believing whatever those white ppl did. I just had a convo with a white fellow coworker from Texas and me and him practice and believe 2 completely different ways of living through Christ. You probably would fit more along the lines of what he thinks which is wrong and will debate me all day into trying to agree with you which won't work so we'll agree to disagree. -
Ajackson17 wrote: »Protestants broke off from the Catholic church, but at one point in time they were one and the same, but still operate as almost as one and the same.
Their were actual ppl that believed in Christ and didn't call themselves Christians or have a title before Catholicism in the very early AD's that were black martyrs and some migrated to Ethiopia and other parts of Africa. I have videos in the other thread explaining how Ethiopian Christians and Muslims worked together and focused on education and their communities. Those people were some of the original Moors.
