Science
- Thread starter flogger
- Start date
It seems to me that idiotic Christians who think the world began 6000 years ago are writing their own scriptures-nowhere in the Bible does it say that the world began 6000 years or 6 billion years or 100 billion years ago. The Bible simply says that "in the beginning when God created the universe, the earth was without form!"
Thus, one must rely on science-which comes from the Latin word for knowledge!!!
Thus, one must rely on science-which comes from the Latin word for knowledge!!!
How likely is it that scientists are wrong? If we say that then all of the evidence we have of dinosaurs existing must've come from Mars right? If we say that we can deny one type of science what is to keep us from denying other types of science-it's just like people who pick and choose their scripture-Jesus didn't like people who did that-even Satan tried to do that with him during his fasting in the desert-remember that? You cannot pick and choose the science you'll accept-unless there are flaws in it-astronomy is essentially an observational technique-to deny that our solar system has remained the way it has since 4000 BC is to deny the existence of gravity-which you can observe here on earth by jumping off a building or jumping on a trampoline. If gravity didn't exist then the earth wouldn't continuously revolve around the sun-the forces attracting the earth to the sun wouldn't exist and the forces pulling the earth away from the sun wouldn't exist and the earth wouldn't have it's own sun. In fact, if there was no such thing as gravity then I believe the earth wouldn't be able to sustain life-it would just be another Mars-except, this Mars would be lost in space and it would be without an atmosphere to contain heat and protect from ultraviolet rays.
This is such a big topic, I'm barely cracking the surface here.
But, you need to show me the evidence the Bible has to say that the world began in 4000 BC.
This is such a big topic, I'm barely cracking the surface here.
But, you need to show me the evidence the Bible has to say that the world began in 4000 BC.
It is a lie that a person must rely upon science to know the truth regarding the origination of the universe.
It seems to me to be logic 101 that a material universe could not arise in a material manner. Thus one has to believe that the universe is eternal, or that it arose in a non-material or "non-natural" manner.
Most people call a non-natural manner "supernatural".
Scripture says that God is a spirit and if this is true then it implies there is a spiritual world. Human beings are said to have been made in the "image" of God. This means that humans were created to have a spiritual component so that even though we have a physical, or animal body if you wish, we may be more than the mere animals which we superficially resemble from a materialistic point of view.
But scripture says that something very dreadful happened in those early days and we no longer fellowshipdirectly with God. perhaps we have a damaged "image" these days.
But God provided a cure for our fallen condition. He arranged for His son to come to Earth in the physical form of a man. Since His son was actually equal to the Father in the Godhead, the son's sacrifice was sufficient to pay for all the sins of humankind, something that would of course been impossible for an ordinary human being.
The Bible tells this story in many different places in scripture in many different ways. If one says the story is false then it follows logically that this would mean that all the books of the entire Bible, OT and new, are false. This is why those who try to find compromises between the lie of "uphill" evolution and the truth of scripture are doomed to gradually slide further and further into scriptural disbelief, as Bishop Spong has done.
But all of this is nonsense to a person who blindly follows the materialism of our age.
Compromisers claim that they believe in the supernatural birth of God in human form. But they gag when told that God supernaturally created the universe and first life in multiple types not that long ago.
The truth is that they are trying to serve two masters, God and Evolution, and we Christians know what Jesus had to say about such folly.
The joke is that "uphill" evolution isn't even scientific.
Oh really? Naturalists/Evolutionists/Big Bangers believe that the Earth was created before the sun and the stars, and there was even plant life on Earth before the sun was formed? That's a new one.
Where did you see this? Can you share it with us?
>Evolutionary science is both pure research and applied
How about dividing it into historical and scientific?
Second, most critics misunderstand the difference between evolution & abiogenics, between evolution and social darwinism, and the difference between science and philosophy. The problem of first cause is philosophical, not scientific.
How about dividing it into historical and scientific?
Second, most critics misunderstand the difference between evolution & abiogenics, between evolution and social darwinism, and the difference between science and philosophy. The problem of first cause is philosophical, not scientific.
Re: Re: Science
Re: Re: Science
This is the part where you say that I believe "God poofed" the matter into existence. But God is supernatural. He is not bound by the laws of nature.
See that? Because matter/energy exists, and we know from science that matter/energy cannot create itself out of nothing according to a fundamental law of nature, we can conclude that whatever created matter/energy was supernatural.
Re: Re: Science
The very existence of the universe is evidence for God.
So you presuppose that God does not exist?
Yet naturalistic atheists such as yourself promote the Big Bang Theory in which matter/energy creates itself from nothing in violation the first law of thermodynamics.
This is the part where you say that I believe "God poofed" the matter into existence. But God is supernatural. He is not bound by the laws of nature.
See that? Because matter/energy exists, and we know from science that matter/energy cannot create itself out of nothing according to a fundamental law of nature, we can conclude that whatever created matter/energy was supernatural.
aharvey
New member
Re: Re: Re: Science
Re: Re: Re: Science
quote by Skeptic:
Science is about evidence. This is why science does not introduce God into theories. Why introduce a variable that is beyond the ability of science to empirically investigate or beyond our ability to rule out?
Listen to this conversation:
Me: Is there a marble in my hand?
You: How should I know?
Me: Well, do I?
You: How do you expect me to answer that from here?
Me: Okay, so do you assume there is a marble in my hand?
You: No, I wouldn't assume that.
Me: So you assume I don't have a marble in my hand?
You: No, I wouldn't assume anything about the presence of a marble in your hand one way or the other.
Me: Ah, so then you assume I don't have a marble in my hand?
You: I just said I make no assumptions about whether there is a marble in your hand!
Me: But that's ridicuous. Why do you assume there is no marble in my hand?
You: What is wrong with you? Can't you see the difference between "no assumptions about the presence of a marble" and "assuming there is no marble"?
Me: Yes, and can't you see how blinded you are by your assumption that there is no marble?
...continue in this vein endlessly...
Re: Re: Re: Science
quote by Skeptic:
Science is about evidence. This is why science does not introduce God into theories. Why introduce a variable that is beyond the ability of science to empirically investigate or beyond our ability to rule out?
Cheez, you guys are stubborn about this logical fallacy!
Listen to this conversation:
Me: Is there a marble in my hand?
You: How should I know?
Me: Well, do I?
You: How do you expect me to answer that from here?
Me: Okay, so do you assume there is a marble in my hand?
You: No, I wouldn't assume that.
Me: So you assume I don't have a marble in my hand?
You: No, I wouldn't assume anything about the presence of a marble in your hand one way or the other.
Me: Ah, so then you assume I don't have a marble in my hand?
You: I just said I make no assumptions about whether there is a marble in your hand!
Me: But that's ridicuous. Why do you assume there is no marble in my hand?
You: What is wrong with you? Can't you see the difference between "no assumptions about the presence of a marble" and "assuming there is no marble"?
Me: Yes, and can't you see how blinded you are by your assumption that there is no marble?
...continue in this vein endlessly...
The evolutionary logic seems to tell them they cannot assume that there were multiple types at the beginning because that is what the Bible says and we can't allow that.
This is despite the fact that this assumption is a better scientific explanation of how all the different varieties of lifeforms got here than the bankrupt idea that life started with a single hypothetical protocell and progressed "uphill" via random mutations to finally reach the pinacle of human beings.
But Galileo never got anywhere either with his better theory with those that dogmatically clung to Aristotle's dumb idea. It has always been the same in science: many times dogmatists have to die off before better ideas take hold. Mayr himself said it sometimes takes about 80 years.
This is despite the fact that this assumption is a better scientific explanation of how all the different varieties of lifeforms got here than the bankrupt idea that life started with a single hypothetical protocell and progressed "uphill" via random mutations to finally reach the pinacle of human beings.
But Galileo never got anywhere either with his better theory with those that dogmatically clung to Aristotle's dumb idea. It has always been the same in science: many times dogmatists have to die off before better ideas take hold. Mayr himself said it sometimes takes about 80 years.
Let's first figure out this question I pose:
Let's say that I am on the roof of a skyscraper-now, if I held a coin over the edge and opened my hand downwards, would the coin remain afloat in the air, or would the coin fall. If so, please tell me why, to the best of your ability!!!
Please answer this question as honestly as you can, and with as much effort as you feel called to!!!
Let's say that I am on the roof of a skyscraper-now, if I held a coin over the edge and opened my hand downwards, would the coin remain afloat in the air, or would the coin fall. If so, please tell me why, to the best of your ability!!!
Please answer this question as honestly as you can, and with as much effort as you feel called to!!!
taoist
New member
Greetings, flogger,
You'll find that muslims posting on islamic sites use exactly the same arguments to justify a young earth, and for exactly the same reasons as christian YECers. Trust me, I've copy/pasted the same arguments from a christan board to an islamic board questioning YEC interpretations. Just replace god-references with allah and you're good to go.
It was a fascinating experience.
In peace, Jesse
You'll find that muslims posting on islamic sites use exactly the same arguments to justify a young earth, and for exactly the same reasons as christian YECers. Trust me, I've copy/pasted the same arguments from a christan board to an islamic board questioning YEC interpretations. Just replace god-references with allah and you're good to go.
It was a fascinating experience.
In peace, Jesse
So?
I've read/heard the exact same arguments for an old Earth, evolution, and the Big Bang from hardcore atheists, agnostics, Taoists, Buddhists, Pantheists, Panentheists, wiccans, Muslims, Catholics, Methodists, and nominal Christians of various denominations. Does that make these arguments any more or less credible?
If your point is that you don't have to be a Christian to be a young-earth creationist and to recognize the evidence is against the Big Bang/Naturalistic Evolutionist model, then I agree with you. In fact, I was was a young-earth creationist for a few years before I became a Christian.
I've noticed that its those arguing against the young earth model who tend to bring up God (or Allah) and theology when the young earthers are talking about scientific evidence.
>So what have you seen that falsifies the evolutionary and big bang hypotheses?
BB can't be falsified. "First cause" is a philosophical problem, not science. The only tow possible answers are "God" and "always was." There is no "scientific" experiment which will differentiate between God and Always was.
BB can't be falsified. "First cause" is a philosophical problem, not science. The only tow possible answers are "God" and "always was." There is no "scientific" experiment which will differentiate between God and Always was.
The Berean
Well-known member
How are these applications of evolutionary science? I need more detail.
I
The Berean
Well-known member
double post
Last edited:
The Berean
Well-known member
never mind...double post