The Bible and Nature

[R.Weeks79]

Ha

You toss around dream dates as if they had some reality. The issue is not when you date Noah's flood or anything else, but whether it happened. Jesus says it did. All others are completely overruled.

No the bible says it, the bible gives dates, you can do the math. I take from that if Jesus said 2+2=5 you would argue that till the day you died even thought the answer is four. I am done with arguing with you, I was gonna argue all your responces but its poinless. There is nothing about the Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Judiasiam faith that are based in fact, its about faith. Faith is wonderful thing its what keeps me going, I lost my daughter many years ago and my faith in seeing her after I die makes my life more bearable. But people like you like I said there could be a line in the bible or any religous text saying 2+2=5 and people like would argue till the end of time, so I am calling it day you have a good one

 

[AV1611VET]

Faith is wonderful thing its what keeps me going, I lost my daughter many years ago and my faith in seeing her after I die makes my life more bearable.

Are you familiar with Horatio Spafford and his great hymn, It Is Well With My Soul?

 

[truthpls]

No the bible says it, the bible gives dates, you can do the math.

Those dates are correct

There is nothing about the Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Judiasiam faith that are based in fact, its about faith. Faith is wonderful thing its what keeps me going, I lost my daughter many years ago and my faith in seeing her after I die makes my life more bearable. But people like you like I said there could be a line in the bible or any religous text saying 2+2=5 and people like would argue till the end of time, so I am calling it day you have a good one

Nothing to argue. The dates of science are faith based. The dates from using the bible are correct. So, for example if the bible indicated that creation was say, 6000 years ago or whatever, and science says man arrived a few million years ago (and the earth is much older) we simply need to calibrate. If science said the first man was 2 million years ago we reduce that to 6000 years. So, their 2 million years is about 333 times too high. or we might say that 2,000,000 science determined years equals 6000 real years. The error curve gets much greater with older ages. For example if the flood was around the time of that great extinction event when they say the dinosaurs died, that would make the flood something like 70 million science determined and dated years ago. So anyone going back into recorded history some 4 or 5000 years looking for the flood would be hopelessly lost and confused. If the flood was 4500 years ago, for example then the science dating is something like fifteen thousand and two hundred times wrong. (4500 times 15,200 = 68,400,000)
The dates of science which are faith based, then must be something in the ballpark of about 15,200 times too high. (and again much much more in error for the billions of years of cosmic dates)

 

[Yttrium]

faith based

I think this is one thing that I can agree with you is bad news. We should just avoid using faith altogether. It causes so many problems.

 

[truthpls]

I think this is one thing that I can agree with you is bad news. We should just avoid using faith altogether. It causes so many problems.

You might as well say we should not breath. There is no option. We either believe God is the creator and true or be believe the shadowy schemes and faith based models of 'science'. There is no other choice.

 

[Yttrium]

You might as well say we should not breath. There is no option. We either believe God is the creator and true or be believe the shadowy schemes and faith based models of 'science'. There is no other choice.

LoL. That's some heavy duty projecting you're doing there. Especially since that's a blatant false dichotomy.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You might as well say we should not breath. There is no option. We either believe God is the creator and true or be believe the shadowy schemes and faith based models of 'science'. There is no other choice.

Science is neither shadowy, scheming, or faith based.

Science works in the open.
"Schemes" will get you nowhere in science.
Science uses evidence, not faith.

0-3, strike out.

 

[dlamberth]

As you said -- chemistry.

Honest question: Basically than, conscious awareness is chemistry?

 

[dlamberth]

You might as well say we should not breath. There is no option. We either believe God is the creator and true or be believe the shadowy schemes and faith based models of 'science'. There is no other choice.

That's ridiculous. If only life were that simple. There are as many models of perspectives as there are human beings.

 

[truthpls]

LoL. That's some heavy duty projecting you're doing there. Especially since that's a blatant false dichotomy.

Explain why Jesus did not believe in Adam and Eve and creation and the flood? Explain why the bible does not say God created all things in many many places? You don't get to type 'false' and have it mean something, sorry.

 

[truthpls]

Science is neither shadowy, scheming, or faith based.

That depends if inspiration was involved along the way. Good luck proving it wasn't. If Satan was behind the aspects of science that cast doubt on creation, then it is all of the above.

Science works in the open.

Maybe the science that works does so in the open. Evolution rather than creation doesn't work. It exists by faith and as an alternative to what God said.

"Schemes" will get you nowhere in science.

Is there really 'in science' any more? Is the science involved in killing millions of little ones really science? Is the covid nonsense science when scientists spoke opposite claims on either side of the issues? Is the gender revision/mutilation science? Is the global cooling/warming science when scientists are all over the map on it? Is the nuclear bombs being worked on in places like Iran 'in the open'?

Science uses evidence, not faith.

Science also abuses evidence and interprets evidence with beliefs. Particularly on issues regarding the origin of man and the cosmos.

 

[truthpls]

That's ridiculous. If only life were that simple. There are as many models of perspectives as there are human beings.

And one of those models of human beings is the evolution of life and the universe rather than the creation. All perspectives rest on belief. On the issue of nature and climate and climate predictions the bible speaks loudly. With the clamoring confusion and discord of voices from science on climate change it is nice to have a proven prophesy track record of the bible on how it will really be.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That depends if inspiration was involved along the way. Good luck proving it wasn't. If Satan was behind the aspects of science that cast doubt on creation, then it is all of the above.

I've been inspired to understand how things work. Never had any contact with satan or gods.

Maybe the science that works does so in the open. Evolution rather than creation doesn't work. It exists by faith and as an alternative to what God said.

Biological evolution works just fine and is done in the open.. Faith is neither needed or useful.

Is there really 'in science' any more? Is the science involved in killing millions of little ones really science?

What are you talking about? Scientists aren't killing anyone.

Is the covid nonsense science when scientists spoke opposite claims on either side of the issues?

Science isn't messy. You got to see it out in the open at it dealt rapidly with a new disease because it wasn't secretive.

Is the gender revision/mutilation science? Is the global cooling/warming science when scientists are all over the map on it?

Climatology are in general agreement on what is happening and why.

Is the nuclear bombs being worked on in places like Iran 'in the open'?

Huh?

Science also abuses evidence and interprets evidence with beliefs. Particularly on issues regarding the origin of man and the cosmos.

Defamatory nonsense.

 

[childeye 2]

Right, chemicals do not do the animating and chemicals are not spirits or spiritual.

Hmmm. Everything is energy in some form. Even scripture says all things were made through God's Word. But as the Word pertains to being the Light of the soul in mankind, I would say it's an energy tantamount to wisdom and compassion in the moraI sense of caring about others.

No more than John had some mental experience in Patmos. He was TAKEN to heaven.

Both Paul and John describe being "in the spirit". They say that for a reason. Paul states he does not know if he was in the body or not.

Then be clear, because talking about a state of mind, chemical reactions etc does resemble mental vibes.

Vibes are definitely feelings. I think I was clear in saying that what we believe to be true creates an emotion which can be observed in brain chemistry. As a clear example, if I believed someone was waiting in the dark to pounce on me, I would experience a spirit of fear. It doesn't necessarily have to be true.

So chemical reaction is not a spirit or scientific evidence of the spiritual.

The spirit of a person is generally regarded as the non-physical aspect of a sentient being. It can describe one's character, their emotions, their disposition. It seems silly to have to prove such things exist in a person. However, observing chemical reactions in the brain to certain stimuli provides evidence that what we believe to be true affects our emotions, our disposition, and our character. And there are also genetic character traits handed down in chromosomes and DNA, which are chemical in nature. So yes, I'd say there is physical evidence of spiritual things.

 

[childeye 2]

As you said -- chemistry.

Yes, it's provable that what we believe creates an emotion and this can be observed in brain chemistry.

How is that relevant or spiritual?

Because the term spirit in scripture describes emotions like the spirit of joy, the spirit of fear, the spirit of wisdom.

 

[truthpls]

I've been inspired to understand how things work. Never had any contact with satan or gods.

Wanting to know is one thing. What you have to study that is supposedly knowledge is another thing. The inspiration behind the scenes we might be concerned with is that inspiration that made what you study. One can memorize a sequence of supposed life forms that supposedly evolved over time that resulted in mankind. That is not understanding how things work, that is believing a story offered as fact.

Biological evolution works just fine and is done in the open.. Faith is neither needed or useful.

Everything works fine since God created it. Your belief that evolution dunnit and was responsible for life merely because part of life is evolving and adapting is not needed.

What are you talking about? Scientists aren't killing anyone.

If science did not exist, the ability to kill millions of little people in the womb and through assisted suicides and nuclear weapons etc would not exist in any degree near what we have today. Scientists are needed and involved in all these things and much more. Death is a big part of what science is about and used for. Does that give you a hint at the inspiration and spirit behind it?

Science isn't messy. You got to see it out in the open at it dealt rapidly with a new disease because it wasn't secretive.

No. We heard conflicting stories and claims actually and some of the claims were that science in a lab created the 'disease' to begin with.

Climatology are in general agreement on what is happening and why.

No, there are different voices saying wildly different things in the name of science.

Huh?

Defamatory nonsense.

False. Interpreting evidence using a set of assumptions and beliefs is exactly what is done. Using shrill words does not help your denial.

 

[childeye 2]

This is a quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson and I am not saying God is not real this is just to debate his quote

If you knew nothing about science and you read the Bible the Old testament which in Genesis is an account of nature, and I said to you give me your description of the natural world based only on this you would say the world was created in six days, and that stars are just little points of light much lesser than the Sun that the fact that they can fall out the sky because that's what happens during the revelation During the Revelation one of the signs that the second coming is that the Stars will fall out of the sky and land on Earth, what that means is you don't know what those things are you have no concept of what the actual universe is.

That quote is basically one of the reason many people are leaving the church, Christiasns are actually taking everything in the bible litterally. Its a book filled with wisdom but the writers were ignorant of just how complex the universe is, geology, astronomy, archeology, biology, those four
sciences debunk much of the bible. A star falling onto the earth...its rediculous. I do not believe in god because of the bible, I belive in God because the universe is so complex that there has to be a designer. I am not calling god ignorant, but the writers were
ignorant of the reality of the universe.

Hmmm. I always felt the fallen stars were symbolic of fallen angels. There's also a woman with the moon under her feet. I think that's also symbolism.

 

[trophy33]

I keep seeing mental concepts, and ideas brought up as "spiritual". I call that kind of thinking "pseudo-spirituality". For something to be spiritual, a person has to actually experience the phenomenon. With out that experiences, the best one can do is to roughly point towards some mental concepts or ideas they may have.

Spiritual = non-physical, immaterial.

Which includes God, spiritual beings, spiritual realities, ideas, mental concepts, thoughts etc. And also the nature of the universe. Nothing truly, objectively material/physical exists. Our experience of solid matter is just our interpretation of "signals" that are non-physical in their nature.

 

[trophy33]

And if you think this has anything to do with the "spritual" you are just plain wrong.

If you just want to focus on the name, do as you wish. You may call it non-physical, immaterial, not locally real or whatever you like. Nothing changes regarding my point - the physical matter does not exist and the nature of our reality is "the other thing than physical".

Which is much more compatible with the spiritual Creator in whom the creation exists (Acts 17:28 NASB) than with classic materialism.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If you just want to focus on the name, do as you wish. You may call it non-physical, immaterial, not locally real or whatever you like. Nothing changes regarding my point - the physical matter does not exist and the nature of our reality is "the other thing than physical".

I'm sorry that's just loopy.

Which is much more compatible with the spiritual Creator in whom the creation exists (Acts 17:28 NASB) than with classic materialism.

and I don't care what your holy book says. This is physics, not religion.