Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[Kylie]

Are you saying blind people do not experience reality because they cannot see?

I prefer a reality that I actually experience all (emphasis on "all") around me and not just a reality that can only be seen.

Please don't tell me you are serious.

I thought it was quite obvious to anyone that I was talking about reality that can be experienced. A blind person can still hear, smell, touch, taste... And these experiences can be experienced by others. If a blind person tells me that the liquid he drank is cold, I can also sip it and feel the coldness for myself. It is this testable and verifiable experience that is the hallmark of reality. And it is something that no religion has ever had.

 

[Kylie]

Maybe He's waiting for you to get saved first?

Or maybe he doesn't exist. If he's waiting for everyone to get saved, I think he'll be waiting forever. Given that he set up this world, why would he develop a plan which he must have known he could never actually carry out?

 

[Kylie]

Some are just getting to their part in the story...and God is no spoiler.

And since there are always going to be more people turning up, then I guess God's going to be waiting forever.

But to understand, the truth is, we can look objectively at our experience here and believe it in the present tense terms it was told in, or, sorry, often only eluded to...and see it as a finished work. Or we can pick it up and go chapter by chapter and scene by scene and get into the details of our lives. But if we never pick up on the facts that have been told to us, and simply go on about our lives as they play out in the story...then, such is life.

Just because something has been told to you doesn't make it a fact. And trying to fit your experiences into something that you have arbitrarily decided is true is at best fallacious reasoning and at worst arrogance in the extreme.

 

[Kylie]

Ok, so dolphin arms have no relation to man's arms, except in the twisted imagination of fanatics of the evolution instead of creation religion. None.

Are you kidding? It's not imagination, you know. We can actually see what the bone structure is. Not only can we do dissections, but we have this nifty technology called X-rays that let us see bone structures.

So how is that twisted imagination?

You might as well say a starfish has arms so we came from them.

Except a starfish's arms operate on a completely different principle to our arms, and their construction is completely different as well.

So no, we aren't closely related to them, and our arms did not develop from starfish arms.

Since you do not know what tge future or formers staes are like, you cannot saybwhat to expect in isotopes.

But I can say that the ratios we see are exactly what we would expect to see if we'd had a same state past.

You cannot explain why the ratios would match a SSP unless you invoke a massive coincidence (or deliberate deception).

 

[Hoghead1]

Dad, when you use language such as "the twisted fanatics of evolution," you create the distinct impression you are resorting to yellow-dog journalist. The latter has absolutely no place in serious theological discussion. Also, when you talk about Goliath being a giant, please check the history of this passage. According to DSS Book of Samuel, Goliath was a lot shorter than later revisions of the Bible describe him. Goliath got taller and became a giant, the Book of Samuel got smaller. That's how it went historically with the Bible.

 

[Hoghead1]

In theological discussions, it is very bad form, and actually illegal, to try and knock your opponent's faith, arguing that he or she thinks the say she does because they have not accepted Christ as Savior, are lost souls, etc.

 

[dad]

Dad, when you use language such as "the twisted fanatics of evolution," you create the distinct impression you are resorting to yellow-dog journalist. The latter has absolutely no place in serious theological discussion.

Ask ourselves whether it is twisted to say Jesus never really created as the bible says He did. You can have your 'theological' discussion nonsense too. I'd rather talk truth.

Also, when you talk about Goliath being a giant, please check the history of this passage. According to DSS Book of Samuel, Goliath was a lot shorter than later revisions of the Bible describe him. Goliath got taller and became a giant, the Book of Samuel got smaller. That's how it went historically with the Bible.

No matter how short he was he was a giant. Are you suggesting he wasn't? Prove it.

 

[dad]

In theological discussions, it is very bad form, and actually illegal, to try and knock your opponent's faith, arguing that he or she thinks the say she does because they have not accepted Christ as Savior, are lost souls, etc.

Find someone who did that and rag on them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ask ourselves whether it is twisted to say Jesus never really created as the bible says He did. You can have your 'theological' discussion nonsense too. I'd rather talk truth.

But the Bible does not claim that. That is only your interpretation at best. And I am sure that most Christians do not think that your claims are correct.

No matter how short he was he was a giant. Are you suggesting he wasn't? Prove it.

Once again, you don't seem to realize that the burden of proof is upon your side when you make rather ignorant claims of this order. But just for fun I might do it. First you need to define "giant".

 

[JackRT]

Goliath was a giant, was he hyperbole too? Besides dinos could have been the giants referred to.

That depends on just how big he was. He could have been the size of Angus McAskill (8 feet, 500 pounds) but if you get larger than that then body weight will literally break the bones and the speed of neurotransmission would leave him bumbling and clumsy.

 

[ScottA]

So these are the evils which God plans to eliminate.

Matthew 7:21 describes the evil of not doing the will of God. But if that is so bad, why do we have free will?

Free will is greatly misunderstood. It is not what we will do that is being played out before us, but what we did do. History is God's [His] story. He is timeless, so the times of the world are storytime telling the story and our part in it. It is finished.

Mark 10:15 is the evil of not indoctrinating little kids. Am I the only one who finds it hard to see indoctrination as a good thing?

You misunderstand. It is not about indoctrination, but about the example that we can witness in a child's behavior, that we should learn from if we are to know the will of God for His children. It is an example of a good father wanting good children, and just what that looks like. It is a guide, by example.

1 Corinthians 6:9 is the evil of unrighteousness (a poorly defined evil if ever there was one). It also mentions the evils of fornication, idolatry, adultery, homosexuality and sodomy. Because people shouldn't have the right to have relationships how they want or worship how they want.

Remember, this is not a story of what people want, but what people did, and who is and who is not going beyond the worldly experience to something better. It is insight.

Galatians 5:21 mentions the evils of envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like. Because God supports the idea of thoughtcrimes. Murders, I agree with. Being drunk by itself isn't evil. And how many Christians get drunk anyway? Lots. And revelries? God has a problem with celebrations?

This is just more of what is outlined in 1 Corinthians 6:9...more of what people "did" in the story that is "Finished," more of what is not acceptable if you want your part in the story to have a [full] and happy ending. This is the story of you making your choice, of life or death.

Luke 11:52 describes how evil it is to keep knowledge from people. Didn't God try to do that in the Garden of Eden?

Again, you misunderstand. This is the [finished] story of those who presumed to be smarter than Him who is writing the story, whose story this is...as if Donald Duck could re-write his own story and be his own Walt Disney, and just how utterly foolish that is.

Hebrews 3:19 says it is evil to be an unbeliever. Yeah, the religion I don't believe in says I am evil for not believing in it. Since I don't believe it in the first place, it fails to be any convincing argument.

Again, this is not a story that we are writing for ourselves. This is the story of us choosing to be a part of the real world (the kingdom of God), or simply die at the end of our storybook tale. Just like what I am telling you now, you can choose to believe it or not, but there are life and death consequences.

Hewbrews 4:3 says nothing about any evil I can figure out.

This confirms everything I have told you about this being a "finished" story ("since before the foundation of the world.").

However, the evils of child abuse, domestic violence, slavery, exploitation of workers, war...

I guess God has no problem with those...

It is not that God has left them out, but I left them out...simply to make the point, and to give you the truth of our story. All of what I have told you can be applied to the same principle of this being God's story first, and that our part in it is limited to His terms, and the consequence of thinking we can re-write it to suit our ungodly character. It is finished. John 19:30

 

[Loudmouth]

The evidence is your whole world...which has been explained, and you cannot prove otherwise.

Show us this evidence, and how it supports your claims.

If you can't prove your claim, then there is nothing to disprove.

But since you do not receive that physical evidence,

You can't point to a shred of this physical evidence. It isn't me who has the problem.

the only evidence remaining is spiritual, and it is available, but you have also refused the terms of receiving it.

That isn't evidence. Evidence is something that you can demonstrate.

What you have are unevidenced beliefs. You have faith, not evidence.

The choice is yours. It is free for the asking, but you have not agreed to the terms. So, if you choose to pass on it, then drop it. Why do you persist at doing nothing to help yourself in this matter?

If someone said that the evidence for leprechauns is leprechaun evidence, you would probably laugh at them. I don't see why I should take spiritual evidence any more seriously than leprechaun evidence.

 

[dad]

That depends on just how big he was. He could have been the size of Angus McAskill (8 feet, 500 pounds) but if you get larger than that then body weight will literally break the bones and the speed of neurotransmission would leave him bumbling and clumsy.

You claim the description of his height was wrong? If I recall it was something close to ten feet.

 

[stephen583]

I've read through this thread and there appears to be a repetitious argument that the Truth must be supported by mainstream, majority religious opinion, otherwise any minority opinion as to the meaning of Scripture is to be regarded as highly questionable or even irrelevant. I find this argument pretty odd, because if you read in Bible it's pretty much evident organized mainstream religion has almost always been challenged by prophets and reformers who by divine revelation delivered a different message from what was "popularly" accepted as "correct" doctrine at the time.

Remember, Jesus was representing a "minority" theology when he preached the Gospel. The Pharisees and Sadducees (who represented the religious majority at the time), HAD IT ALL WRONG !.. Bible Prophecy also appears to indicate in the Last Days mainstream theology will be rife with unsound doctrine, as well as unsupported myths and fables, (2 Timothy 4:3).

So I would offer, those who claim their argument is "consistent" with or supported by majority, mainstream opinion, and say minority opinions are to be ignored.. Aren't really making much of a case for their argument being TRUE. In fact, I would regard that as a "Great Big Red CAUTION Sign" !!

 

[Michael]

I've read through this thread and there appears to be a repetitious argument that the Truth must be supported by mainstream, majority religious opinion, otherwise any minority opinion as to the meaning of Scripture is to be regarded as highly questionable or even irrelevant.

That wasn't really my contention by the way. It is however true that YEC is the minority viewpoint, and faith in Christ isn't an automatic justification of YEC.

 

[AV1611VET]

So I would offer, those who claim their argument is "consistent" with or supported by majority, mainstream opinion, and say minority opinions are to be ignored.. Aren't really making much of a case for their argument being TRUE. In fact, I would regard that as a "Great Big Red CAUTION Sign" !!

But we see both sides of the coin here.

Every single Christian believes: IN THE BEGINNING GOD.

OTOH, some creation beliefs (YEC, for example) are in the minority around here.

Now here's the kicker: Neither one makes a difference with these guys.

That's because they aren't really interesting in explanations.

When it comes to the creation week, they want the one thing God did not provide: evidence.

As my pastor said:

"God gave Himself at the Cross. That means He gave His all. You can't give more than all. Yet unbelievers want more from Him. His all isn't good enough."

My senior pastor made this point:

"Unbelievers demand a sign first, before they'll consider what you have to say. Just like they did at the Cross."

Matthew 27:40b If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.

 

[Reasoning]

"Unbelievers demand a sign first, before they'll consider what you have to say. Just like they did at the Cross."

I hope you do too. So you believe in the spaghetti monster, elfs, trolls and peter pan? Of course not, no reason too, because there is no indication for the existence of these.. Well, it's the same with God.

 

[AV1611VET]

I hope you do too.

Matthew 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

 

[Loudmouth]

When it comes to the creation week, they want the one thing God did not provide: evidence.

Why wouldn't creation week leave any evidence?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why wouldn't creation week leave any evidence?

Because none would have been generated.

Have you seen my Apple Challenge?