Fair enough --- show me an angel while you're explaining this: 1 .
Actually, AVVET, you are now making an argument that angels may not exist. You have a belief that angels exist.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
But thats the thing; science states that if something DOES exist, it CAN be observed.
EVERYTHING that exists CAN be observed.
Observation is the first part of the scientific method; things start with an observation, and then clues to somethings' existence are gleaned.
This is not to support creationism (I'm a scientist and an evolutionist), but your portrait of science is not accurate.
First, observation is NOT the first part of the "scientific method". It is in the grade school simplified version, but not really. The first part is hypothesis. And the source of hypotheses is imagination.
Second, science does propose things that cannot be observed. For instance, Special Relativity proposes things called "tachyons". They are like photons but can only go faster than light. They can't be observed.
In cosmology, what we see is the observable universe. That is, we can see as far as light can travel to get to us. However, because the universe is expanding, there is a lot of universe out there we cannot observe because light from it can never reach us.
Third, when science says "observed", it means a special kind of observation: everyone will have the same observation under approximately the same circumstances. There are some observations that happen only to you (or me) and don't happen to anyone else. Some observations happen to some people and not others. So, just because something doesn't meet the scientific use of the term "observation" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are things scientists acknowledge exist but can't be observed by everyone.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
Creatio ex nihilo left an audit trail back to the Big Bang? I don't think so. The Big Bang is creatio ex materia, not creatio ex nihilo.
Before BB there was nothing: no spacetime, no matter, no energy. BB is creatio ex nihilo -- creation from nothing -- by the very definition.
Again --- can we get off this Flood stuff? It has nothing to do with the Creation Week.
Wait a minute. We were discussing the ability to have an "audit trail". Creationists say we have an audit trail back to the Flood. Do you deny that?
Now, as to this claim that the Flood has nothing to do with Creation Week, I answered this is detail in another thread. Briefly, Creation Week has an inevitable consequence that all animals lived together at the same time. But the fossil record falsifies that by having different animals in different strata -- not all animals in each strata. The Flood is an ad hoc hypothesis saying that the fossil record is due to the effects of the Flood. No Flood, no saving Creation Week from falsification.
We've covered this before, haven't we? The King James Bible disagrees with the McGraw-Hill Bible --- and we know what that means, don't we?
It means we have 2 different translations of the same text. That doesn't address what I said: that there are two different books. Here, let me state it again:
AVVET, Christianity has always held that God has twobooks. Why do you keep insisting in ignoring the second book? It's very ironic, considering that second book is Creation. In saying we must only look to scripture, you deny that God created!
So, there are two different books. You are looking at only one -- scripture. Why are you ignoring the second book? Why are you even saying that the second book isn't valid? To do so denies God as Creator.
There aren't?
What do you call these guys?
Since when did you become a polytheist? That quote from Job is supposedly God talking. Singular.
Notice that we have God being quoted directly. Genesis 1-3 doesn't have that. Genesis 1-3 isn't one big quote from God. For one thing, if it was written by the eyewitness, then it would say "I". And God can say "I". After all, He does so when He answers Moses: "I am that I am".
The two creation stories are not dictated by God, or even Adam.
BTW, who are the "sons of God"? Where does it say they were created? If not created, where did they come from? It seems, at the very least, that the "Documentation" is incomplete.
Interesting verb tense here. Do you believe the creation is still in progress?
Where is "here"? If that was supposed to be a link, it doesn't work. You mean you don't believe creation is still in progress? Where did God go? I thought you were a theist. That means God is still around. When did you become a deist?
I don't think I need to defend some outlandish accusation that I'm worshipping It.
LOL! Talk about putting the noose around your neck! Who in the world capitalizes "It" when referring to a book? Yes, we capitalize the book -- such as Iliad -- but no one capitalizes the pronoun when referring to the book! The only time we capitalize a pronoun is when we are referring to God, i.e. He. That you capitalize "It" gives us that much more evidence that you have made a literal, inerrant interpretation of the Bible into your god.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
What do you think that "truth" is? In a strict monotheism, there should be no angels.
Surveys of the sky over the last decade have revealed that the composition of the Universe is largely unknown to us.
Do you honestly think this statement provides evidence in support of angels?
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
In about any religion or definition of religion, supernatural immortal beings are "gods".
Even (G)od says "no other god before me".
The angels have all the characteristics of like Greek gods, or gods in all sorts of religions. So... Christianity is monotheistic? I dont get it.
Hey, if you can worship three separate beings and still call them one God, you can call just about anything monotheistic.
__________________
Don't talk like one of them. You're not! Even if you'd like to be.
To them, you're just a freak, like me! They need you right now, but when they don't, they'll cast you out, like a leper! You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other.
See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
