[[Earth to CottShop, Science was founded in the west by men of Faith. Anyone who had any education got it from reading the Bible first. Some didn’t publish for decades, as they frantically tried to fit what they were seeing into a Biblical context.]]
Earth to null and void, the early muslims (Before militant islam took over) had great libraries of scientific books, not just religous. Not all scientists were God fearing saved people but simply men who professed to be so, and early scientists didn’t ‘frantically’ attempt to do fit hte eivdnece to the bible- the evidnece already fit on it’s own- there was no need for coercing it to do so- it was those hwo rejected God that frantically tried to fit what they a priori beleived about what their eyes saw ie: everythign ‘looks old’’.
[[What would you do if you saw [naaah, let me use a loaded word:] What would you do if you personally witnessed something that conflicted with your understanding of the Bible?]]
I’ve yet to see anythign that conflicts with hte bible- all I see are assumptions by those who reject anythign but natural explanations, and I’m sure that smarter folks than I in the past were even more convinced that the assumptions of God-rejecting macroevolutionsits/old agers were based on nothign but unsupported guesses. And I’m equally sure that those folks saw the same old age conflicting evidneces that we see today and were just as amused at hte dismissive explanations as we are today.
[[That was the crisis of Faith these men endured. They came to the reluctant conclusion that their understanding of the Bible was incomplete, that verifiable facts are facts,]]
Verifiable FACTS? How were they ‘verified’? When were they determiend to be ‘FACTS’? Crisis of faith? Me thinks you are mind reading long dead folks. Religious scientists, those who were truly saved, I think it is fair to logically conclude, were not put off by thsoe who ‘professed to be God’s children’ who abandoned God based solely on nothing more than peer pressure and assumptions and imaginary scenarios proposed by folks who display a tenacious bent toward NON objective science.
[[I bet you think Darwin said where life came from too]
I bet you’re wrong, but I also bet this won’t stop you from assigning false accusations to me in the future either.
[[I suspect you would deny your own lyin’ eyes.]]
I suspect you severely underestimate the logic abilities of both myself and past investigators of evidences. Who declared their eyes were lying? And with what do they use to declare such? Established FACTS? No- we’ve already discussed that they were NOT idneed facts, but were nothign more than conjectures, guesses and a priori dogmatic devotion to naturalism. While you are perfectly allowed to beleive anythign you like, what you aren’t allowed is generalizing about the past and htose who were alive by attempting ot show that everyone was so ignorant that they should abandon their belief in God’s creation based simply on assumptive imaginary scenarios that lacked ANY empiracle evidences to support. You are however free to suggest whatever you like, but doing so will meet with the truth that refutes your assertions.
Earth to null and void, the early muslims (Before militant islam took over) had great libraries of scientific books, not just religous.
Nearly all were copies of Pagan Greek, Pagan Roman, and Pagan Hindu texts, all of which predated the Christian European invention of the scientific method. Fortunately the early Arab (and Irish) scholars preserved these historical records during the Church induced Dark Ages in Europe.
Not all scientists were God fearing saved people but simply men who professed to be so,
Agreed.
and early scientists didn’t ‘frantically’ attempt to do fit hte eivdnece to the bible- the evidnece already fit on it’s own- there was no need for coercing it to do so- it was those hwo rejected God that frantically tried to fit what they a priori beleived about what their eyes saw ie: everythign ‘looks old’’.
Galileo's own writings confirm that he struggled to fit what he saw with what he read. It was a struggle precisely because of his pre-existing faith.
Bruno was burned alive because, unlike Galileo, he refused to deny what he observed. (Although even Galileo murmured 'But it moves, still' after he recanted to avoid the stake.)
I’ve yet to see anythign that conflicts with hte bible-
I never doubted that for an instant. Nor do I think that you are capable of seeing anything that might fit into that category.
Verifiable FACTS? How were they ‘verified’?
Where to begin? Gravity? So far every time I've dropped something, it fell. Maybe that isn't 'factual' or 'verifiable' enough for you, but it is for me.
Me thinks you are mind reading long dead folks.
Minds? No. Writings? Yes.
Religious scientists, those who were truly saved, I think it is fair to logically conclude, were not put off by thsoe who ‘professed to be God’s children’ who abandoned God based solely on nothing more than peer pressure and assumptions and imaginary scenarios proposed by folks who display a tenacious bent toward NON objective science.
Speaking of mind reading...
I bet you’re wrong,
That puts you in a rare group.
but I also bet this won’t stop you from assigning false accusations to me in the future either.
Feel free to correct any errors I make when I guess I think it is fair to logically conclude what your beliefs are.
And with what do they use to declare such? Established FACTS? No- we’ve already discussed that they were NOT idneed facts, but were nothign more than conjectures, guesses and a priori dogmatic devotion to naturalism.
Do you deny the existence of the Galilean satellites?
Is not the fact that another planet, a bare dot in our sky, has bodies that orbit it, and not us, proof that we are not the very center of all of God's creation, like the Bible says?
While you are perfectly allowed to beleive anythign you like,
Thanks!
what you aren’t allowed is generalizing about the past and htose who were alive by attempting ot show that everyone was so ignorant that they should abandon their belief in God’s creation based simply on assumptive imaginary scenarios that lacked ANY empiracle evidences to support.
Like the stories someone wrote in a book? Do tell! What empirical evidence supported the Biblical account of creation before cosmic background radiation and telescopic observation lead to the Big Bang Theory of the last century?
You are however free to suggest whatever you like, but doing so will meet with the truth that refutes your assertions.
Such as?
[footnote: there was no 'Before militant islam took over' Islam was born in blood, lives in blood, and glories in blood. It's first acts of faith were at the edge of a sword, and to this day they follow the same formula that fueled their growth from day one: Convert or die.]