Question:
Im thrown between science and christianity?
2013-02-03 19:13:01 UTC
All my life i have been a christian and belived in god and jesus... but recently in earth science weve talked about stuff like evolution and the big bang theroy. There is proofand evidence behind these also :(. I am sadly leaning towards science at the moment but i really dont want to. What do i do becuase there is evidence of jesus crucifiction and many other scenes from the bible that were related to god
Thirteen answers:
Kyle
2013-02-03 19:49:26 UTC
Hey brother,



Science can't explain NDE (Near death experiences) people pronounced dead having out of body experiences, and contact with God, and having revelations of events that will happen in their life, research this!



*Evolution is still a theory, and if true doesn't disprove God.

*The big band is still a theory, and if true doesn't disprove God.

*The end-times are here, and it is prophesied that many will lose faith.

*There are 9+ historical sources other than the bible, supporting Jesus' crucifixion..

* Good youtube channel that uses science, & logic to support God's existence http://www.youtube.com/user/InspiringPhilosophy



Enjoy and God bless you, don't buy into Satan's lie, he wants you to be fooled and lose faith.



"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." ~Psalm 14:1



"At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other" ~Matthew 24:10



Enjoy :)
CRR
2013-02-03 21:11:34 UTC
Remember that there is no conflict between Christianity and Science in general. In fact there is a good argument that the Christian worldview that the world was created by a rational God encouraged people to believe the way the world worked could be rationally understood.



No there is not proof for either the theory of evolution or the big bang.



Many of the so called proofs of evolution, such as antibiotic resistance, adaptation, and speciation, provide evidence only for micro-evolution. This does not matter much because Creationists accept micro-evolution and even use it to explain rapid appearance of species after the flood.



The General theory of Evolution (Kerkut) requires BOTH abiogenesis and macro-evolution. Neither of these has sufficient evidence to be considered as more than hypotheses.



"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory." (http://www.cosmologystatement.org)



You can find more information at sites below.



@Godless

The extant manuscripts of the writings of the 1st century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18



Therefore Jesus did exist.
Seeker
2013-02-03 20:59:53 UTC
Don't worry.

Genesis is True, but not Fact.

Genesis is Allegorical, NOT literal.

Yes, there are historically verifiable events in

the Bible, but that isn't the point of the Bible.

The Bible is meant to brings God's message

of TRUTH, not facts.

Creationists will make the horrible mistake in

taking the Bible 100% literal and thereby miss

what God is trying to tell us through Scripture.



Another mistake, made by Atheists, is that if

Science disproves the Bible, then the Bible is

wrong, but this is simply not true.



The Big Bang happened, Evolution happened,

Sun and Stars came before the Earth, Moon

is a story I'm not knowledgeable in though.

BUT

God is Creator, Jesus is Savior and Son of

God, and everything in the Bible is TRUTH,

just don't equate Truth to facts, okay.





Also, imagine God trying to explain all the

factual science-y stuff to a bunch of tribes

of Israelites. I don't think they would have

been able to take in all those facts.
2013-02-03 19:58:15 UTC
There is no conflict between operational science and Christianity. Christianity is the foundation of the modern science method. Evolution and Big Bang theory are historical science that cannot be experiemented with and do not follow the scientific method so should not be considered science. The scant evidence for evolution fits into the biblical creation model much better. The choice isn't between science and genesis, it's between the secular humanism creation story and the genesis creation story.

I would suggest going to sites like creation.com they will have answers to all your questions. :)
Nous
2013-02-04 00:34:06 UTC
The Pope, Catholic Church, Church of England and mainstream churches all accept the big bang and evolution!



Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury put it rather well – “Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth”!



Nice that christians and atheists can agree and laugh together even if it is at fundie expense!



But behind the laughter is the despair at the fundamentalists striving so hard to destroy christianity by turning it from a religion to an ideology!



Surveys suggest that 29% of American christians are so extremist in their beliefs that they fall well outside of the accepted bounds of christianity!
capitalgentleman
2013-02-03 19:29:59 UTC
Science is not against religion, and vice versa.



The Big Bang idea comes from a Catholic priest.



Sir Isaac Newton (laws of motion, and gravity guy) was actually a Theologian, not a scientist.



Charles Darwin was trained as a priest, but, decided to become a geologist when he graduated. However, he remained close to the Church, and even wrote about God in his book, Origin of Species.



Most scientists are religious. When I went to Seminary, about half of my fellow students had been scientists before they became Theologians, and none stopped liking science.



This idea that the two are against each other is a myth. They are actually complimentary.
Sillypants
2013-02-03 19:20:55 UTC
Sorry, Brandon. There isn't any Christian evidence. I would ask you to go to your trusted religious leaders and ask them for proof. They will most likely tell you proof is in your heart, the Bible and in other scholars who want the story to be true.



But none of them (none, literally none) can point to any evidence of Jesus from Jesus' actual day of living. We have proof of Cesar when Cesar was alive at the time the proof was made, and other people who wrote about him as a contemporary of his. But you will find zero proof of any writings of Jesus as Jesus was alive written by a buddy who knew him. None. No record.



Even the shroud has been determined to be a fake.
?
2013-02-04 00:17:45 UTC
A scientific theory is a unifying concept that explains a large body of data. It is a hypothesis that has withstood the test of time and the challenge of opposing views. The Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are supported by extensive empirical data. There is no reliable data supporting the some-god-did-it hypothesis, and especially not the Yahweh-did-it hypothesis.



There's no reliable evidence for God/Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Baal, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, Vishnu, Thor, Shiva, or any of the thousands of other gods that people have worshiped. There's also extensive evidence that they are all just myths, created to help soothe our fear of death, and perpetuated through religion to subjugate the underclass into obedience.



Science has shown that there's no need for gods to explain the traditional reasons for a god -- origin of the universe, origin of life, origin of species, origin of humans, origin of morality. Science also shows us the psychological reasons that people believe in god(s). See the 1st link for the video, "Andy Thomson: Why We Believe in Gods" or buy his book at the 2nd link. Also, check out Michael Shermer's "The Believing Brain" at the third link, and his "Why People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World" at the 4th link.



Yahweh is typically defined as all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, and having free will. Such a god is internally and externally incongruent, and thus cannot logically exist. An all-powerful and all-knowing god with free will can't exist, because it could not both know the future and change it. An all-powerful and all-loving god can't exist and allow the true horrors that occur to sentient beings.



All reliable evidence points to Jesus Christ being just a myth. There is no reliable evidence that Jesus even existed, and significant evidence that he didn't. The evidence is in the Bible, the other religions of the time, the lack of writings about Jesus by historians of the 1st century, and the lack of writings about Jesus by anyone until a decade or more after his supposed life.



The story of Jesus can be shown to be just a myth created to fulfill prophesy, cobbled together out of stories from the Old Testament and previous gods and myths -- created in the 40's and 50's by Paul of Tarsus (who exhibited symptoms of epilepsy and had delusions of Christ talking to him), the other apostles, the unknown authors of the gospels in the 70's or later, and many other people. The reliable evidence for this is overwhelming.



Paul and the other epistle writers don't know any biographical details of Jesus' life, or even the time of his earthly existence. They don't refer to Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary or Golgotha — or any pilgrimages to what should have been holy sites of Jesus' life. They also don't mention any miracles that Jesus was supposed to have worked, his virgin birth, his trial, the empty tomb, or his moral teachings. To them Jesus was largely a sky-god, who existed in the spiritual past.



If Jesus had actually existed, Paul would have written about his life, disciples, teachings and miracles. Paul did not write about any of this. Paul even wrote (1 Cor. 1:22-23) that Jesus did no miracles. Also, Paul thought that Peter was another (competing) epistle writer. Paul referred to James as the Lord's brother, not Jesus' brother. This is much like people of a religion who refer to each other as brothers. Paul wrote (in Romans 16:25-26, Galatians 1:11,12) that he knew Jesus through revelation, which is another term for fantasy and delusions. We can also tell that people were accusing Paul of lying, because he attempted to defend himself in Romans 3:5-8.



If Jesus had actually existed, the gospels would have been written in first person format. Instead, they were written in third person fiction format, often with the supposed thoughts of Jesus. The gospels should also have been original. Instead, Matthew and Luke extensively plagiarized from Mark. The gospels don't even claim to be eyewitness accounts. In fact, there are no claimed eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus - anywhere. All we have are hearsay accounts.



If Jesus had actually existed, at least one of the approximately 30 local historians of the first century would have written about him. No historian of the first century (including Josephus and Philo of Alexandria) wrote about him or his disciples.



Therefore Jesus didn't exist.



The Jesus story also shows extensive similarities to other myths of the time (especially Horus, Mithra, Osiris, and Dionysus). For instance, baptism into the death and resurrection of Osiris washed away sins so the soul could obtain the best place in heaven. Some early Christians attributed these similarities to Satan who went back in time and created the religions that "copied" Christianity.
?
2013-02-03 19:18:12 UTC
go for science.

It is supported by evidence.

It isnot dogmatic



@ get Saved

there is evidence for macro evolution

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html



there is evidence of the big band

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html



Lying for your religion is still lying
Believer
2013-02-03 19:20:11 UTC
You are being INDOCTRINATED in public school. Being taught waht to think instead of how to think.



Here are the top 10 Lies taught in public school....



Here are common statements by those who believe in evolution and why those statements are false.



1) The Fossil Record proves evolution. The idea that life evolved from simple to complex forms completely ignores the evidence of the Cambrian Explosion when all major life forms suddenly appeared.

2) Homology proves evolution. It has been assumed that similar body structure develop from the same genes but this has been shown to be false. Different developmental gene pathways leading to similar structures demonstrate that there are no direct ancestral relationships between different species.

3) Vestigial organs prove evolution. Our ignorance of the function of a bodily organ does not imply that it is leftover from evolution.

4) Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. In other words, the early development of the more complex embryos resembles their evolutionary ancestors. This idea came from Ernest Haeckel in 1874, but in 1875 he admitted his drawings were a total fraud. This idea along with his drawings are still taught as truth in textbooks today.

5) Natural Selection is a mechanism for evolution. Natural Selection cannot create any new species. It simply eliminates the weaker strain of the organism.

6) Mutations are a mechanism for evolution. Mutant strains of fruit flies cannot survive outside of the laboratory and antibiotic resistant mutant strains of bacteria will eventually die out to the parental strains, therefore, neither of these examples demonstrate evolution.

7) Transitional Fossils prove evolution. According to Darwinian Theory, there should be millions of transitional fossils. The handful of so-called transitional fossils, which have been enthusiastically declared to be “missing links”, have all have been later shown to be either one specie, another or a complete fraud.

8) Life came from non-life (spontaneous generation). This was proven false by Pasteur in 1860. Since scientists can no longer claim that it happens today, they move it out of the realm of real science, which is observable and testable, to pure speculation by claiming that it could have happened billions of years ago.

9) Our environment can change our DNA (adaptation). Lamarckism was proven false in 1891 by August Weismann when he cut off the tails of 19 successive generation of rats but their offspring still grew tails. Hundreds of generations of circumcised Hebrew males and hundreds of generations of Chinese woman having their feet bound (to make them smaller) has not changed their offspring.

10) Micro-evolution proves Macro-evolution. Small changes (Micro-evolution) over long periods of time change one specie into entirely new specie (Macro-evolution). This has never been observed. This is pure speculation.
Steve
2013-02-03 19:22:39 UTC
Well you could pick the best of both worlds, and become a Christian Scientist.
Armor
2013-02-03 19:17:59 UTC
There is no evidence with macro-evolution and the big bang.
Bob C
2013-02-03 19:17:18 UTC
What evidence is there?


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...