Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[dad]

I think dad's basic beliefs are probably only consistent with this particular view of the universe:

http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328

dad seems to believe that physics began about 6K years ago as a "sim" world, and it's going to be turned off one day.

Nope. I think God created the universe just over 6000 years ago. Stars. Sun. Man. Animals. Fish. Etc. There were laws and forces then too. Then sometime probably after the flood a big change happened in nature.

The mistake of science and nominal believers is that they assume present laws can be extrapolated back to tell us about origins.

 

[Davian]

It is according to the site I listed.
So then, real men of science mostly admit they do not know when it comes to the creation and origins issues. Lurkers are you a real man or a mouse?

So you blame that web site for your blunder?

 

[Davian]

What you chose will not affect the future or past laws of the universe. This is news?

That is not what I asked. If we choose not to believe in semiconductor theory, will the internet stop working?

 

[dad]

So you blame that web site for your blunder?

What blunder?

 

[dad]

That is not what I asked. If we choose not to believe in semiconductor theory, will the internet stop working?

Try to focus on the OP. Is there something in the bible that you think science knows or can do or does not agree?

 

[Davian]

What blunder?

Your list of scientists that wear pants.

 

[dad]

Your list of scientists that wear pants.

The list of believers on the link I used seems OK. Name some on it that were not?

 

[Davian]

Try to focus on the OP.

Of course. I understand that science is uncomfortable for you, even as you use what it produces.

Is there something in the bible that you think science knows or can do or does not agree?

I don't see how it matters. Even if the Bible and mainstream scientific knowledge were 99.5% in agreement, if one thing in the bible is fictional - say, the resurrection - all the time you have spent here, and virtually every post - has been a waste of time.

 

[Davian]

The list of believers on the link I used seems OK. Name some on it that were not?

I'm not doing your homework for you - you verify your own list. For all I know, not everyone on that list wore pants.

 

[dad]

Of course. I understand that science is uncomfortable for you, even as you use what it produces.

No. I do prefer to talk of things relevant to the relationship of science and the bible though. You have not made that connection by mentioning chips.

I don't see how it matters. Even if the Bible and mainstream scientific knowledge were 99.5% in agreement, if one thing in the bible is fictional - say, the resurrection - all the time you have spent here, and virtually every post - has been a waste of time.

We would be most miserable of all men if not for the One that saved us. We are happy though.

 

[dad]

I'm not doing your homework for you - you verify your own list. For all I know, not everyone on that list wore pants.

Someone asked you what they wore?

 

[Davian]

No. I do prefer to talk of things relevant to the relationship of science and the bible though. You have not made that connection by mentioning chips.

You said, "All of mainstream science regarding creation and origins IS beliefs".

I am talking about science. How is some of science beliefs, and other areas not? Because you say so?

We would be most miserable of all men if not for the One that saved us. We are happy though.

If there were no God, you would be sad?

Now, that is sad.

 

[Davian]

Someone asked you what they wore?

No, but it was the common theme to your list. Are you going to verify everyone on that list or not?

 

[dad]

You said, "All of mainstream science regarding creation and origins IS beliefs".

Correct...and so..?

I am talking about science. How is some of science beliefs, and other areas not? Because you say so?

Because it either is or ain't. If it ain't we would see the goods.

 

[dad]

No, but it was the common theme to your list. Are you going to verify everyone on that list or not?

Don't try to conflate issues and divert from the point. The point was that many solid real people of science were believers. No one cares who wore panties.

 

[Colter]

The Bible wasn't written by either historians or philosophers, it was written by holy men, some more holy than others. True religion and true science should have no lasting quarrel. People of science can be true believers, just not believers in the inerrancy of the Bible books.

 

[dad]

The Bible wasn't written by either historians or philosophers, it was written by holy men, some more holy than others.

No. By God using men, and it didn't matter about holy. God in us is what is holy.

True religion and true science should have no lasting quarrel.

True science does not deal in creation or origins. So the quarrel is with the nonsense falsely called science that claims to do that.

People of science can be true believers, just not believers in the inerrancy of the Bible books.

Believers in what? Jesus creating all things?

 

[Colter]

No. By God using men, and it didn't matter about holy. God in us is what is holy.

True science does not deal in creation or origins. So the quarrel is with the nonsense falsely called science that claims to do that.
Believers in what? Jesus creating all things?

The Father is the creator, he created his Son.

A scientist can have faith in God and study his material creation, the old earth and the life that evolved on it. It's not complicated.

 

[Davian]

Correct...and so..?
Because it either is or ain't. If it ain't we would see the goods.

Science delivers. What has religion produced?

 

[Davian]

Don't try to conflate issues and divert from the point. The point was that many solid real people of science were believers.

Sure, but they did well is spite of that.

No one cares who wore panties.

Are you retracting your list?