Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[Davian]

That was not mentioned. The site posted them because they were scientists and believers in creation.

Sure, but in different and contradictory flavours of "creation". Not yours.

The different state past thing is very recent.

So the list is not actually in support of your claims. Why then did you bring it up?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Take this out of context:

Luke 1:44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

Again , pure nonsense since in reality a mother cannot know why her baby kicked. Also the verse applies to one fetus at best. Try again.

Remember, I can show verses of OT priests doing abortions. You need to do a bit better than quotes out of context. And I am not the one taking verses out of context. That would be your and dad's sin.

 

[AV1611VET]

Remember, I can show verses of OT priests doing abortions.

Woooooow.

Is that supposed to mean something?

I can show OT priests doing this ...

1 Samuel 2:22 Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Woooooow.

Is that supposed to mean something?

I can show OT priests doing this ...

1 Samuel 2:22 Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

I see that you no longer understand English. The problem with the anti-abortion crowd is that their position is not justified by using the Bible. Yet abortions were done at times by the priests in the Old Testament. If priests can do abortions they can't be all that bad.

 

[dad]

Sure, but in different and contradictory flavours of "creation". Not yours.

So the list is not actually in support of your claims. Why then did you bring it up?

There is only one. My ideas have to do with where science went wrong.

 

[dad]

I see that you no longer understand English. The problem with the anti-abortion crowd is that their position is not justified by using the Bible. Yet abortions were done at times by the priests in the Old Testament. If priests can do abortions they can't be all that bad.

Whatever water some ancient Israelites were given to drink, if they were right with God would it bother their baby?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whatever water some ancient Israelites were given to drink, if they were right with God would it bother their baby?

Not unless it affected the mother's breast milk. Remember, babies are not babies until they are born.

But the verse does describe how priests caused pregnant women to miscarry, in other words it was a chemical abortion.

 

[Smidlee]

Not unless it affected the mother's breast milk. Remember, babies are not babies until they are born.

But the verse does describe how priests caused pregnant women to miscarry, in other words it was a chemical abortion.

There is more reason to believe the bitter water was beer .. Budweiser beer in fact. It made her belly swell and her thigh rot. Yeap, it was beer alright. I bet you will tell us next the Bible mentions USA.

 

[AV1611VET]

I bet you will tell us next the Bible mentions USA.

JERUSALEM

 

[Smidlee]

JERUSALEM

Well I learn something new every day.

 

[Edmond Smith]

Why'd he wait so long?

He didn't wait so long. We took too long. Science has always been there. Timing is the most important thing.
There is a time for everything. Science and the Bible work quite well together. There's plenty of science in the bible.
For Example:

Genesis 1:1 begins "In the beginning" In these three simple words we already have a basic principle of physics. "In the beginning " is a statement of time. In fact this is a statement of the beginning of time. God is outside of time, but in creating the original material out of which He formed the earth, God also created time. Modern physics describes time as a function of matter. In fact, the atomic structure of matter seems to hold the key to the movement of time itself. Scripture states this essential principle when it points out that time and matter were created simultaneously. It only took modern science 6,000 years to catch up with the Bible.

Genesis 1:1 continues with "God created the heavens and the Earth." This is the only logical scientific explanation for the origin of matter. There is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of matter! Some evolutionists theorize that matter has always existed. But if this were true, we would not be here today. If matter always existed, even evolutionists must admit that the universe would be nothing but a weak, homogeneous field of energy today, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Big Bang theory does not present a naturalistic explanation for the universe.

 

[HitchSlap]

He didn't wait so long. We took too long. Science has always been there. Timing is the most important thing.
There is a time for everything. Science and the Bible work quite well together. There's plenty of science in the bible.
For Example:

Genesis 1:1 begins "In the beginning" In these three simple words we already have a basic principle of physics. "In the beginning " is a statement of time. In fact this is a statement of the beginning of time. God is outside of time, but in creating the original material out of which He formed the earth, God also created time. Modern physics describes time as a function of matter. In fact, the atomic structure of matter seems to hold the key to the movement of time itself. Scripture states this essential principle when it points out that time and matter were created simultaneously. It only took modern science 6,000 years to catch up with the Bible.

Genesis 1:1 continues with "God created the heavens and the Earth." This is the only logical scientific explanation for the origin of matter. There is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of matter! Some evolutionists theorize that matter has always existed. But if this were true, we would not be here today. If matter always existed, even evolutionists must admit that the universe would be nothing but a weak, homogeneous field of energy today, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Big Bang theory does not present a naturalistic explanation for the universe.

What's the only logical scientific explanation for the origin of god?

 

[Smidlee]

Science is simply the product of human reasoning that tries to explain things mechanically. Mechanical things are easier to deal with than spiritual things and even people. Because mechanical things are much simpler there are those who try to explain absolutely everything mechanically.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well I learn something new every day.

 

[Edmond Smith]

What's the only logical scientific explanation for the origin of god?

I'm sure you've heard this before:

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
4. If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
5. God exists.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'm sure you've heard this before:

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
4. If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
5. God exists.

And maybe you've heard this before:

God is love.
Love is blind.
Ray Charles is blind.
Therefore, Ray Charles is god.

 

[Smidlee]

And maybe you've heard this before:

God is love.
Love is blind.
Ray Charles is blind.
Therefore, Ray Charles is god.

I questioned "Love is blind" part.

I'm sure you've heard this before:

Notice it was a trick question. It like what is the best answer can a computer give for the meaning of life? The answer is 42.

 

[AV1611VET]

And maybe you've heard this before:

God is love.
Love is blind.
Ray Charles is blind.
Therefore, Ray Charles is god.

Helen Keller was blind.
We are monotheists.
Therefore you're wrong.

 

[HitchSlap]

Helen Keller was blind.
We are monotheists.
Therefore you're wrong.

You believe in three gods, though.

 

[AV1611VET]

You believe in three gods, though.

You truncated that on purpose, didn't you?

You're only confusing yourself.