Christians, could we just take all this pseudo-scientific garbage out of the equation?

If you could get that through their thick skulls I would buy you a drink.

In respect to religious matters most Christians, rightly or wrongly, perceive much of science to be motivated to disprove their faith and it's therefore a natural response to view findings as a direct attack. It most often is and even when it isn't the findings are used by non-believers to attack believers.

Indeed many non-believers use science as a reason not to believe in Christianity and if they're sincere in such protestations then logic dictates revelation of wrong science removes the impediment to belief. In that sense you're entirely wrong to conclude that disproving science that says "old earth" will lead no-one to believe Genesis is true. In deed I can personally testify that for me that was and still is the case.

You also seem to have gained the strange view that Christians are longing for the abandonment of modern life/scientific advancements and in doing so also forget that many of advances and discoveries have been made by Christians who see no conflict between Christianity and science.

I can't speak for all Christians but I can say I don't believe in unmaking science I'll remake religion. As far as I'm concerned religion has never been unmade by science in the first place.

Perhaps you might like to consider a different question.... is believing in science and more especially the scientific assumptions that underlines scientific findings, experiments and results more akin to a faith based religion than either the scientists or their hordes of less knowledgeable advocates like to admit?

If an in-vitro experiment in a laboratory during which evolution can be clearly observed in a colony of bacteria does not constitute enough evidence, then what does?

Lenski began with E coli in his experiment. Has it changed to something other than E coli? Is it honest to say it is not E coli when in fact it still is E coli?

Consider, if one tells you the truth and you do not believe it but later discover that it is the truth is it honest in the light of this truth to say to the one that revealed the truth before you knew it that He is a liar? Should not one say to oneself what was the truth was revealed to be the truth although I did not believe. What else did I not believe was the truth that actually is the truth. Or to say instead no matter, I will not investigate because I do not desire to know the truth.

and after that nice statement, you get a response doing exactly what you explain is pointless. funny & pathetic are many of the people in R&S.

Apparently theists in this section have never tried assembling a jigsaw puzzle. No matter how much you research and plan and try, you're not going to get the right piece into the right spot on the first try every time.

You have a false presupposition that Christians are anti-science, they are not.

You also confuse historical evidence with observable evidence.

However, Evolution and the Big Bang theory are not science, they are a belief system, as they are complete unobservable and no evidence thus far of anything like Evolution or the Big Bang happened or is happening.

--------------

"Again, this is not me attacking Christianity nor am I trying to be offensive."

That is clearly what you are actually trying to accomplish.

>Everywhere I go, (at least, within the constraints of this little forum) I see Christians trying to disprove scientific facts, or somehow ascribe them to their deity. Isn't that completely pointless?

Yes. Because it suffers from the false dichotomy logical fallacy. Even IF they disproved some scientific fact, it doesn't automatically prove God.

Still, we welcome new evidence that displaces old ideas.

Great question, no offense taken brother.

First, I'd like to say that a vast majority of Christians, especially those who actually know the Bible like myself, do not believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. In order to comprehend the Bibles meaning, you have to research the original time written, audience, and language. The creation account in Genesis is not meant to walk on all fours and become a literalistic labrythe. That is where Ken Hamm was wrong.

The "days" of Genesis are stages, or incraments. God communicates in ways that we understand... that's why "days" is used. Those incraments could have, and in my opinion, DID take place over billions of years. The distance of the stars alone is evidence for that.

You saying Christians are trying to disprove scientific facts is comparable to me saying that Atheists are manipulating scientific facts to support their theory. You have your research, I have mine. You believe I'm misleading. I believe you are. It is subjective. This entire life is. It's all about what you search for.

For example, if you google "Signs of God's Existence" or "Proof Evolution is False", you will find unlimited amounts of evidence proving God exists and created us. Now, on the other hand, you can also search for "Proof of Evolution" and find unlimited amounts of information that seem to prove your theory.

Fact is, whether you acknowledge the deity of Christ or not, we can both agree on this principle alone that Jesus was absolutely right when He said "Seek and you will find." The evidence is out there for whatever you want to find. Thats the benefit of life. It is all about your choices. You have free will to live and believe however you see fit. That is what makes belief in God such an amazing thing. Thats what makes love so meaningful.

You can pick out one statement from the old testament law in the Bible (while leaving out the rest) and make God out to be this overbearing tyrant that focuses on punishment (a common atheist arguement).

Thats the same as me telling everyone I know about the most negative moment of your life (while leaving out the rest). Rest assured, you'd look like the bad guy. "But wait, I've done all these great things in my life, you can't only focus on the bad." .... This is what atheists do my friend. They don't understand the Bible, they don't know it as a whole (which is how it is meant to be read) so they blow things out of proportion.

Here's my nail in the coffin. Something, for some odd reason, that atheists never mention. Charles Darwin's book "Origin of Species" had a chapter titled "Problems with Theory". He himself acknowledges that there are zero transitional fossils to prove his theory. He says that he hopes, with time, we will find them and that if we don't, creationists have a valid arguement to disprove his theory. Yes, those are Darwin's words. But I'm assuming like most atheists, you haven't read both the Bible and Origin of Species.

Father George Lemaitre

Kindly address your comments to the ones they apply to - fundamentalist Protestants. The vast majority of Christians have no problems with science.

If they don't use pseudo science they have no argument other than a book told me so. Attacking science makes them feel better. They may as well stick their fingers in their ears and yell blah blah blah..I can't hear you, like a child.