[__ Science __ ] Do Conservatives have a “Difficult Relationship with Science”?

[Barbarian]

Denying the truth won’t change anything.

That's the funny thing about reality. It doesn't care what any of us think. I know why masks work; it's not because viruses are too big to get through the mesh. It's because electrostatic and van der Waals forces make them adhere to fibers in the cloth.

That's also why woven/nonwoven and cotton/synthetic layers make a difference; the physical and conductive properties of of the molecules making up the fibers affect those forces and the likelihood of encountering a fiber in nonwoven material is different than that in woven materials.

 

[Barbarian]

Does the first three chapters of the Bible contradict science?

No. Why would figurative accounts contradict science? Neither allegories nor miracles are contrary to science. Science just can't comment on miracles.

Does the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ contradict science?

No. For the reasons you learned.

The Flood?

No. In fact, there is evidence for such a flood in the Middle East that happened about the right time. As you know, God doesn't say the flood was worldwide.

Joshua's long day?

No. Whether it's a miracle, God halted the entire cosmos for a time, except for the Earth or if it's an allegory, science doesn't say it couldn't be. Seems unlike God to halt all the rest of creation to give Joshua more time, but He is God, and could do it. Or more likely, it's allegory for God's backing of the Israelites.

onah and the whale?

No. Apparently, such a thing acually happened in historical time. Or it could have been miraculous. Or it could be allegorical.

Thing is, it doesn't matter. It's like criticizing Jesus if there never was a good Samaritan who helped a stranger in trouble; that's not the point.

As usual, you're not happy with the answers I gave you for these before, and you're probably going to be unhappy to see the same answers again. Sorry about that.

 

[JLB]

That's the funny thing about reality. It doesn't care what any of us think. I know why masks work; it's not because viruses are too big to get through the mesh. It's because electrostatic and van der Waals forces make them adhere to fibers in the cloth.

That's also why woven/nonwoven and cotton/synthetic layers make a difference; the physical and conductive properties of of the molecules making up the fibers affect those forces and the likelihood of encountering a fiber in nonwoven material is different than that in woven materials.

None of that is relavent to a 1 micron bacteria passing through an 80 micron opening in a mask.

 

[Barbarian]

None of that is relavent to a 1 micron bacteria passing through an 80 micron opening in a mask.

It explains why tiny viruses are trapped in masks with much larger openings. The viruses, if they encounter a fiber, adhere to it by physical forces that dominate at such tiny sizes.

Bacteria are usually very much larger than viruses, although there is some overlap for some very large viruses and very small cellular organisms. The key is that viruses are pretty much molecule of RNA or DNA, with a coat of protein molecules, with at least one molecule that can hook onto the surface of a cell to let the nucleic acid enter the cell. Usually much smaller and simpler than bacteria which are rather complex cells.

 

[Quantrill]

No. Why would figurative accounts contradict science? Neither allegories nor miracles are contrary to science. Science just can't comment on miracles.


No. For the reasons you learned.

No. In fact, there is evidence for such a flood in the Middle East that happened about the right time. As you know, God doesn't say the flood was worldwide.

No. Whether it's a miracle, God halted the entire cosmos for a time, except for the Earth or if it's an allegory, science doesn't say it couldn't be. Seems unlike God to halt all the rest of creation to give Joshua more time, but He is God, and could do it. Or more likely, it's allegory for God's backing of the Israelites.

No. Apparently, such a thing acually happened in historical time. Or it could have been miraculous. Or it could be allegorical.

Thing is, it doesn't matter. It's like criticizing Jesus if there never was a good Samaritan who helped a stranger in trouble; that's not the point.

As usual, you're not happy with the answers I gave you for these before, and you're probably going to be unhappy to see the same answers again. Sorry about that.

The first three chapters are not figurative accounts. They are historical and presented as fact. What reason do you have in saying they are figurative and not presented as fact?

For the reasons I learned? I haven't learned anything from you yet. You said the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ are presented as fact. How is the Virgin Birth and Resurrection presented any different than the first three chapters in (Genesis). Both are presented as fact.

God did say the Flood was worldwide. That is presented as fact. What reason do you have in rejecting it other than your science.

Joshua's long day is presented as historical. Fact. A miracle from God. What reason do you have in considering it an allegory other than your science rejects it.

It doesn't matter if such a thing as a whale swallowed a man before. The whole record of Jonah is miraculous intervention by God. The storm. The prepared fish. The fish taking Jonah to land. The vine and gourd. All is presented as fact and historical. To be believed. But you see, you admit again you reject what science rejects.

You as a scientist reject what science rejects. You are accepting the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ, because how could you not and wear the label of Christian.

It matters because people like yourself, science, love to try and inject evolution into the Bible. The only way to do it is to make what the Bible says as figurative or an allegory. Then they present their fairy tales and theories and try and show that the Bible supports them.

But it does not. The Bible and evolution are incompatible. The Bible presents the Word of God and that which is to be believed as historical and fact. Your science presents it's faith in the theory of evolution. If you want to believe it, as I have said many times, go ahead. Quit trying to marry the two. They are incompatible.

Quantrill

 

[JLB]

It explains why tiny viruses are trapped in masks with much larger openings. The viruses, if they encounter a fiber, adhere to it by physical forces that dominate at such tiny sizes.

Bacteria are usually very much larger than viruses, although there is some overlap for some very large viruses and very small cellular organisms. The key is that viruses are pretty much molecule of RNA or DNA, with a coat of protein molecules, with at least one molecule that can hook onto the surface of a cell to let the nucleic acid enter the cell. Usually much smaller and simpler than bacteria which are rather complex cells.

Masks are useless unless they are N95.

 

[Barbarian]

None of that is relavent to a 1 micron bacteria passing through an 80 micron opening in a mask.

Right. As we discussed, the reason that many of the particles are trapped in the mask, is that they adhere to the fibers of the mask.

 

[Barbarian]

The first three chapters are not figurative accounts. They are historical and presented as fact.

I know you believe that, but if that were true, most Christians would see it your way. And they don't.

For the reasons I learned? I haven't learned anything from you yet. You said the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ are presented as fact.

More precisely, they are presented as literal history. And of course, the text itself says that the creation story in Genesis is not literal history.

God did say the Flood was worldwide. That is presented as fact.

No. He used "erets" (land) instead of "tebel" (world) precisely because it wasn't a global flood. If He meant to say it was worldwide, He would have done so.

You as a scientist reject what science rejects.

And as a Christian, I accept what Christianity accepts. As we discussed, there is no conflict.

It matters because people like yourself, science, love to try and inject evolution into the Bible.

As I showed you, the Bible neither rejects nor asserts evolution. Neither does it assert or reject electrons or DNA. There's a lot of things that are real that aren't in the BIble.

The Bible and evolution are incompatible.

I know you believe that, but since evolution is observed everywhere today, that just can't be. I'm thinking you're not objecting to evolution (change in allele frequencies in a population over time) but to a consequence of evolution, (common descent). You seem aware that the former is a fact, but have problem with the latter, it seems.

Is that a fair understanding of your position?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I know you believe that, but if that were true, most Christians would see it your way. And they don't.

More precisely, they are presented as literal history. And of course, the text itself says that the creation story in Genesis is not literal history.

No. He used "erets" (land) instead of "tebel" (world) precisely because it wasn't a global flood. If He meant to say it was worldwide, He would have done so.

And as a Christian, I accept what Christianity accepts. As we discussed, there is no conflict.

As I showed you, the Bible neither rejects nor asserts evolution. Neither does it assert or reject electrons or DNA. There's a lot of things that are real that aren't in the BIble.

I know you believe that, but since evolution is observed everywhere today, that just can't be. I'm thinking you're not objecting to evolution (change in allele frequencies in a population over time) but to a consequence of evolution, (common descent). You seem aware that the former is a fact, but have problem with the latter, it seems.

Is that a fair understanding of your position?

May I butt in?
Why on top of the mountains in New Hampshire some 200 miles inland from the sea are there sea shells inside the rocks over 4000 feet high?

I know.
You'll have some kind of crazy answer for it.

 

[Barbarian]

Why on top of the mountains in New Hampshire some 200 miles inland from the sea are there sea shells inside the rocks over 4000 feet high?

Not seashells. Entire continental shelf ecosystems of corals, shells, crustaceans, etc. So how did coral reefs end up on mountains?

The sequence of Acadian deformations in central New Hampshire ​

January 01, 1993​

The sequence of Acadian deformations in central New Hampshire | The Acadian Orogeny: Recent Studies in New England, Maritime Canada, and the Autochthonous Foreland | GeoScienceWorld Books | GeoScienceWorld

The Central Maine Terrane (CMT) includes the rocks that extend northeasterly from Connecticut to Maine and from the Monroe Fault on the west to the Campbell Hil

pubs.geoscienceworld.org

There is extensive folding of these coastal deposits, and the folding produced mountains. There aren't merely shells on top of the mountains; the mountains are made of shells and other fossils.

I know.
You'll have some kind of crazy answer for it.

Folding continental shelf strata makes mountains. Go figure. It's happening in the Himalayas right now.

 

[Quantrill]

I know you believe that, but if that were true, most Christians would see it your way. And they don't.

More precisely, they are presented as literal history. And of course, the text itself says that the creation story in Genesis is not literal history.

No. He used "erets" (land) instead of "tebel" (world) precisely because it wasn't a global flood. If He meant to say it was worldwide, He would have done so.

And as a Christian, I accept what Christianity accepts. As we discussed, there is no conflict.

As I showed you, the Bible neither rejects nor asserts evolution. Neither does it assert or reject electrons or DNA. There's a lot of things that are real that aren't in the BIble.

I know you believe that, but since evolution is observed everywhere today, that just can't be. I'm thinking you're not objecting to evolution (change in allele frequencies in a population over time) but to a consequence of evolution, (common descent). You seem aware that the former is a fact, but have problem with the latter, it seems.

Is that a fair understanding of your position?

Really? Tell me who are these Christians. Tell me why they are Christians. Tell me where you get these numbers. Tell me why should I change what the Bible says to bow to a majority? If such a majority exists. Is that your reason for believing the first three chapters of (Genesis) is figurative?

The Virgin birth and Resurrection are presented as fact and literal history. And, the text in Genesis is presented as fact and history. My question to you has been and is, how is the Virgin Birth and Resurrection presented any differently then the first three chapters of (Genesis)? Then the Flood? Then Joshua's long day? Then Jonah and the whale?

If you're going back to defining certain words in a verse to prove your point, then give the verses where the word is found.

Christianity does not accept your evolution. You accept the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ as you cannot label yourself Christian otherwise. Everything else is subject to your science as to whether or not you agree to it.

No. The Bible rejects your evolution. The Bible is clear that God is the Creator and all life is created after it's kind. No evolution. (Gen. 1-3). No evolution in either the creation of the universe or life.

My understanding is what God said in (Gen. 1-3) and in other parts of the Bible. Which makes the Bible and evolution incompatible.

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

Really? Tell me who are these Christians.

The three major branches of Christianity are Roman Catholic Christians who comprise about 50% of the world's Christians, Eastern Orthodox Christians, which are the second largest branch, and Protestant Christians who make up most of the rest. There are some smaller groups, but they don't comprise a very large portion even combined together.

Roman Catholics and Eastern orthodox Christians and many Protestant denominations like Lutherans and Anglican Christians acknowledge that a figurative first three chapters of Genesis is consistent with our faith.

So yes, most of them.

Tell me why they are Christians.

They accept the Nicene Creed, that was used by Christians as far back as Roman times to define who was a believer. It sums up what Christian orthodoxy is.

The Nicene Creed

www.creeds.net

One important difference is in the description of the Trinity. Western Christians usually say:
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

While Eastern Orthodox Christians do not say " and the Son." This "filoque" clause has been a major issue between the Eastern and Western Churches.

Tell me why should I change what the Bible says to bow to a majority?

You shouldn't have to. Even if you don't accept a figurative Genesis, you are still a Christian as long as you acknowledge the truth of the Nicene Creed.

Christianity does not accept your evolution.

Actually, the majority of the world's Christians accept that evolution is consistent with God's word. However, it is not a doctrine of His church, so you can disagree with that and still be as Christian as any other in His church.

The Bible is clear that God is the Creator and all life is created after it's kind.

Of course. The problem is that you're not happy with the way He did it.

My understanding is what God said in (Gen. 1-3) and in other parts of the Bible.

And it won't matter to your salvation, even though most Christians don't share your interpretation.

Which makes the Bible and evolution incompatible.

As I pointed out, evolution (change in allele frequencies in a population over time) is directly observed. That's not debatable. We see it happening. On the other hand, common descent, which is a consequence of evolution, is usually what creationists don't accept, and that requires inference from evidence.

So that, I think is really what your skepticism is about. Am I wrong?

 

[GodsGrace]

The first three chapters are not figurative accounts. They are historical and presented as fact. What reason do you have in saying they are figurative and not presented as fact?

For the reasons I learned? I haven't learned anything from you yet. You said the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ are presented as fact. How is the Virgin Birth and Resurrection presented any different than the first three chapters in (Genesis). Both are presented as fact.

God did say the Flood was worldwide. That is presented as fact. What reason do you have in rejecting it other than your science.

Joshua's long day is presented as historical. Fact. A miracle from God. What reason do you have in considering it an allegory other than your science rejects it.

It doesn't matter if such a thing as a whale swallowed a man before. The whole record of Jonah is miraculous intervention by God. The storm. The prepared fish. The fish taking Jonah to land. The vine and gourd. All is presented as fact and historical. To be believed. But you see, you admit again you reject what science rejects.

You as a scientist reject what science rejects. You are accepting the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ, because how could you not and wear the label of Christian.

It matters because people like yourself, science, love to try and inject evolution into the Bible. The only way to do it is to make what the Bible says as figurative or an allegory. Then they present their fairy tales and theories and try and show that the Bible supports them.

But it does not. The Bible and evolution are incompatible. The Bible presents the Word of God and that which is to be believed as historical and fact. Your science presents it's faith in the theory of evolution. If you want to believe it, as I have said many times, go ahead. Quit trying to marry the two. They are incompatible.

Quantrill

Who was around to write down what happened in the garden? Did Adam write the story?
And did snakes speak in those days?
What came first,,,man or vegetation?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

The three major branches of Christianity are Roman Catholic Christians who comprise about 50% of the world's Christians, Eastern Orthodox Christians, which are the second largest branch, and Protestant Christians who make up most of the rest. There are some smaller groups, but they don't comprise a very large portion even combined together.

Roman Catholics and Eastern orthodox Christians and many Protestant denominations like Lutherans and Anglican Christians acknowledge that a figurative first three chapters of Genesis is consistent with our faith.

So yes, most of them.

They accept the Nicene Creed, that was used by Christians as far back as Roman times to define who was a believer. It sums up what Christian orthodoxy is.

The Nicene Creed

www.creeds.net

One important difference is in the description of the Trinity. Western Christians usually say:
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

While Eastern Orthodox Christians do not say " and the Son." This "filoque" clause has been a major issue between the Eastern and Western Churches.

You shouldn't have to. Even if you don't accept a figurative Genesis, you are still a Christian as long as you acknowledge the truth of the Nicene Creed.

Actually, the majority of the world's Christians accept that evolution is consistent with God's word. However, it is not a doctrine of His church, so you can disagree with that and still be as Christian as any other in His church.

Of course. The problem is that you're not happy with the way He did it.

And it won't matter to your salvation, even though most Christians don't share your interpretation.

As I pointed out, evolution (change in allele frequencies in a population over time) is directly observed. That's not debatable. We see it happening. On the other hand, common descent, which is a consequence of evolution, is usually what creationists don't accept, and that requires inference from evidence.

So that, I think is really what your skepticism is about. Am I wrong?

Since they say there are more Christians in China than anywhere else, what denomination are they and how do you know?

 

[Barbarian]

Since they say there are more Christians in China than anywhere else, what denomination are they and how do you know?

Estimates are about 40 million. Apparently 10 million Protestants and 30 million Catholics.

Christianity in China - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Way fewer than here. There are about a billion Roman Catholics in the world, for example.

 

[Quantrill]

The three major branches of Christianity are Roman Catholic Christians who comprise about 50% of the world's Christians, Eastern Orthodox Christians, which are the second largest branch, and Protestant Christians who make up most of the rest. There are some smaller groups, but they don't comprise a very large portion even combined together.

Roman Catholics and Eastern orthodox Christians and many Protestant denominations like Lutherans and Anglican Christians acknowledge that a figurative first three chapters of Genesis is consistent with our faith.

So yes, most of them.

They accept the Nicene Creed, that was used by Christians as far back as Roman times to define who was a believer. It sums up what Christian orthodoxy is.

The Nicene Creed

www.creeds.net

One important difference is in the description of the Trinity. Western Christians usually say:
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

While Eastern Orthodox Christians do not say " and the Son." This "filoque" clause has been a major issue between the Eastern and Western Churches.

You shouldn't have to. Even if you don't accept a figurative Genesis, you are still a Christian as long as you acknowledge the truth of the Nicene Creed.

Actually, the majority of the world's Christians accept that evolution is consistent with God's word. However, it is not a doctrine of His church, so you can disagree with that and still be as Christian as any other in His church.

Of course. The problem is that you're not happy with the way He did it.

And it won't matter to your salvation, even though most Christians don't share your interpretation.

As I pointed out, evolution (change in allele frequencies in a population over time) is directly observed. That's not debatable. We see it happening. On the other hand, common descent, which is a consequence of evolution, is usually what creationists don't accept, and that requires inference from evidence.

So that, I think is really what your skepticism is about. Am I wrong?

Being part of Roman Catholicism or Greek Orthodox or Protestant churches doesn't make one a Christian. You've just dumped all people in these churches and branded them all Christians. Foolish. Most all of these have liberal and false doctrines not to be believed.

Acceptance of the Nicene Creed doesn't make one a Christian. Where did you get that? So, your most just went out the window.

Give the verses where you defined 'land' and the 'world' in post #(108).

I reject your evolution. I reject your trying to force evolution into the Scriptures. (Genesis) is fact and literal history. Evolution is not a doctrine of Christians because it doesn't exist in the Bible. It is a theory and faith of the science world. It is a lie when forced into the Bible.

Not so. I am perfectly happy with the way God created and believe it. It is you who want to change the way He did it to fit your science.

You lost your 'most' with your definition of a Christian. My interpretation is I believe what it, the first 3 chapters of (Genesis), says.

Science sees what it wants to, to support it's faith in evolution.

The Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ are presented as fact and literally true, which you believe. So also is the Flood and Joshua's long day, and Jonah and the whale presented as fact and literally true. Unless you can show me where they are not 'presented' as fact and history and literally true, then your claim of figurative or allegorical interpretation is empty. Making your science the basis for what you believe in the Bible.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Who was around to write down what happened in the garden? Did Adam write the story?
And did snakes speak in those days?
What came first,,,man or vegetation?

God was. He is the Author.

The serpent in the garden spoke, yes.

Vegetation.

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

Being part of Roman Catholicism or Greek Orthodox or Protestant churches doesn't make one a Christian.

Sorry, they are Christians for the reason you learned. They espouse the Nicene creed, which defines who is a Christian. In fact, it is the way Christians identified each other during the Roman persecutions.

Acceptance of the Nicene Creed doesn't make one a Christian.

Sorry, that's how one is identified.

Where did you get that?

The early Christian Church. In it's earliest form, it was known as the Apostle's Creed, because it was what the Apostles taught.
In its oldest form, the Apostles’ Creed goes back to at least 140 A.D. Many of the early church leaders summed up their beliefs as they had an opportunity to stand for their faith—see, for example, 1 Timothy 6:12. These statements developed into a more standard form to express one’s confession of faith at the time of baptism. It is not Scripture, but it is a simple list of the great doctrines of the faith.

What is the Apostles' Creed?

The Apostles' Creed, though not written by the apostles, is the oldest creed of the Christian church and is the basis for others that followed.

billygraham.org

I reject your evolution. I reject your trying to force evolution into the Scriptures.

As you learned, there is no need to inject scientific facts into Scripture. That's not what it's for. There are many things that are true, that you won't find in Scripture. It's for your salvation, about man and God and our relationship. That should be enough for you.

Unless you reject things in the Creed, it won't matter if you reject what God says about the way He created things. It's not a salvation issue.

 

[GodsGrace]

God was. He is the Author.

The serpent in the garden spoke, yes.

Vegetation.

Quantrill

God is not the author of the bible.
Men, who were inspired by God, authored the bible. It's important to understand the difference.

Serpents don't speak.
They represented evil.

In chapter one vegetation came first.
In chapter two man came first.

 

[jaybo]

Being part of Roman Catholicism or Greek Orthodox or Protestant churches doesn't make one a Christian. You've just dumped all people in these churches and branded them all Christians. Foolish. Most all of these have liberal and false doctrines not to be believed.

Acceptance of the Nicene Creed doesn't make one a Christian. Where did you get that? So, your most just went out the window.

Give the verses where you defined 'land' and the 'world' in post #(108).

I reject your evolution. I reject your trying to force evolution into the Scriptures. (Genesis) is fact and literal history. Evolution is not a doctrine of Christians because it doesn't exist in the Bible. It is a theory and faith of the science world. It is a lie when forced into the Bible.

Not so. I am perfectly happy with the way God created and believe it. It is you who want to change the way He did it to fit your science.

You lost your 'most' with your definition of a Christian. My interpretation is I believe what it, the first 3 chapters of (Genesis), says.

Science sees what it wants to, to support it's faith in evolution.

The Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ are presented as fact and literally true, which you believe. So also is the Flood and Joshua's long day, and Jonah and the whale presented as fact and literally true. Unless you can show me where they are not 'presented' as fact and history and literally true, then your claim of figurative or allegorical interpretation is empty. Making your science the basis for what you believe in the Bible.

Quantrill

"Most all of these -- Roman Catholicism or Greek Orthodox or Protestant churches -- have liberal and false doctrines not to be believed", but you are the embodiment of all truth? Seriously??