TheBear
NON-WOKED
Compared to Russia's 32% who believe the same thing.
Oh my, indeed.
Third of Russians think sun spins round Earth? | Reuters
Upvote
0
Not true at all. Science would have to understand what it was seeing in creation for that to be true. Man sees, not science. We see enough that we can know there was a creation. That does not mean changes of great scope did not occur after creation, such as the flood...uplifting..etc etc. Science tries to explain the changes in a godless way, to the point of not including creation!!! That sure does not mean science is what the verse was talking about at all. On the contrary. Absolutely not the spirit of the text.
There isn't, when they look to origins. The only purpose is to cast doubt on God's word.
Scientific conclusions is a matter of what authority you choose to except[sic] for most people because they neither have the time or ability to know for themselves.
I do not care who believes God did not really create like He said. Or whether you take a hike.There really is no polite word for the nonsense you wrote. Even you can't truly truly believe that a Baptist like Francis Collins is trying to rubbish the Bible?
Or is your mind so tightly closed that you would believe even that?
I think my interaction with a brick wall ends here.
A methodology that has nothing but the physical, and wallows in glee in that limitation."Science" is not a judging being that can "understand what it is seeing." "Science" does not "explain." "Science" is merely a systematic methodology of nature observation.
Great. Maybe they ought to read His word, and stop stabbing in the dark, going on dead end roads.Most of the early Greek scientists were theists, and a minority segment of those Greek scientists concluded that one supreme Creator exists based on their scientific observations of the constancy and predictability of the heavens. They further concluded that this one supreme Creator was perfectly virtuous, again based on their scientific observation of the heavens. But they declared that beyond his existence and his basic character, there was nothing else they could know about that one supreme creator.
Right, and we could say the Great Spirit of the native Americans is also the true God..etc. Neither of those statements means that either rest of the claims of either the natives of the scientific Greeks was right!Paul spoke of those ancient Greek monotheists, quoted one of them, declared that the one supreme creator they discovered from creation was, in fact, the true God.
Correct. That does not give man license to interpret nature with a godless philosophy. It just means that what we see is from God.Now, scripture already declares that God's existence is visible in His creation (Psalm 19), and Paul declares that God deliberately makes His presence known in creation specifically so that people will observe Him in creation, seek Him, and possibly find him.
You are reading too much into what Paul said and meant. I do not believe he meant that the Greeks had it all right and 'proved' Psalm 19!The fact that those ancient Greeks--who Paul clearly knew about--actually proved out Psalm 19 gives him the ammunition to declare in Romans 1 that those who observe creation and come to a non-theistic conclusion cannot escape fault, because it was proven that God is discoverable in creation even without scripture.
Yet science does diss God and His creation and word in their godless philosophy and claims, and methodology. In no way are they to be trusted interpreting the created universe we see! They look at creation, which ought to prove God exists to them, and zealously omit Him and all things spiritual, and His word from it, choosing to interpret it in a demonic way.The early scientists of the Christian era were still Christian. Galileo was a Christian. Newton was a Christian. Leeuwenhoek was a Christian. There is nothing about a "systematic methodology of nature observation" that leads men away from God, but the intention of men to disavow God even in the face of the facts they see in nature.
I do not care who believes God did not really create like He said. Or whether you take a hike.
Define scientific? Was it scientific to have an ax handle float in water, or man walk on water? Was it scientific for God to send fire to burn the wet log for Elijah in an observed test? Was it scientific for Christ to rise from the dead? Man's so called science is so small, that real science in action is not comprehended or comprehensible by it!!!!
There is no proof that any man has ever walked on water. There is no proof that Elijah existed or that a god sent fire to burn a wet log for him. There is no proof that someone named Jesus ever rose from the dead.
Yes.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness -- 2 Timothy 3
Not in astronomy or archeology or medicine or physics or even mathematics. In righteousness, or in other words, moral philosophy.
Now, if someone can find a specific passage that says just as explicitly that the purpose of scripture is to be a textbook on physical properties of creation, I'll accept it.
Rather, we can gather from Romans 1 and Acts 17 that God declares science reliable in revealing His presence even in the absence of scripture. If the data derived from science were unreliable, Romans 1 and Acts 17 would be lies. Scientific data is reliable, although the conclusions men choose to draw from it may be false.
Originally Posted by dadDefine scientific? Was it scientific to have an ax handle float in water, or man walk on water? Was it scientific for God to send fire to burn the wet log for Elijah in an observed test? Was it scientific for Christ to rise from the dead? Man's so called science is so small, that real science in action is not comprehended or comprehensible by it!!!!There is no proof that any man has ever walked on water. There is no proof that Elijah existed or that a god sent fire to burn a wet log for him. There is no proof that someone named Jesus ever rose from the dead.
There is no proof that any man has ever walked on water. There is no proof that Elijah existed or that a god sent fire to burn a wet log for him. There is no proof that someone named Jesus ever rose from the dead.
There is no proof that any man has ever walked on water. There is no proof that Elijah existed or that a god sent fire to burn a wet log for him. There is no proof that someone named Jesus ever rose from the dead.
In the realm of religion, submitting to an absolute and infallible authority figure is the norm. There are no absolute and infallible authority figures in science.
IOW - just because you personally submit to an absolute and infallible authority figure, doesn't mean everyone does.
"Undefeated" he calls himself.
Only in the sense that you can't win an argument with a brick wall, because it has no arguments. Just, "Anybody who disagrees with me is engaged in a wicked conspiracy against the Bible."
Sounds like you want a whole liquor store full of proof, doesn't it?
Really where have you been living under a rock, every heard of the bible?
O yea you probably don't think it is proof, better think twice you may not be a smart as you think you are.
The thing which dad either can't get his head around, or doesn't want to get his head around, is that even if those things happened (and I believe that at least one of them did), one off miraculous events are not something which science can investigate.
Really where have you been living under a rock, every heard of the bible?
O yea you probably don't think it is proof, better think twice you may not be a smart as you think you are.