Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[In situ]

It should be yours as well.

I don't see why.

I would think that an honest person would agree with this.

I still do not see why.
The link you provide in your OP in that thread is dead (404), do you want me to read all the 9 pages of your usual rhetoric or can you provide me with a short argument for why I shall share your opinion in this matter?

 

[AV1611VET]

I can judge, I know the difference between right and wrong. The "God" of the OT was rather wicked to say the least.

It depends on whose side you're on.

Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you point me to that thread with a link please?

My Apple Challenge II

 

[AV1611VET]

I wasn't aware that you knew the profession of everyone posting in this thread AV.

I don't need to.

My GP is a born again Christian.

For what it's worth though, I did ask him if he believed in evolution, and he said, 'yes'.

 

[In situ]

So a baby is a baby only after birth?

What is it then in the womb?

Good question, and there is no clear answer to that.

If you with baby mean "human" then it depends on what development stage the "baby" is in. It starts out as single cell, which turns into a lump off cells that then develops into something worm like then fish-like - it does not look similar to a fish but it is actual fish features that can be observed, such as blood circulatory system and heart like a fish, a liver like a fish etc. These features then turns into amphibian like features which in the end turns into mammalian and human like features.

 

[In situ]

I don't need to.

My GP is a born again Christian.

For what it's worth though, I did ask him if he believed in evolution, and he said, 'yes'.

I doubt he "believes" in evolution. If you ask him again I am sure he will say he accepts the evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

The link you provide in your OP in that thread is dead (404), do you want me to read all the 9 pages of your usual rhetoric or can you provide me with a short argument for why I shall share your opinion in this matter?

No.

I just want you to read the first line of that post.

I provided the link that that line came from for protocol.

 

[Vicomte13]

Well, I don't believe there exists any gods which implies you must consider me to be a swine as well. What exctely was it I wrote in this thread that earned me that honor?

You think it's ok to kill babies, because you think you have the authority to define when a baby becomes a baby. That arrogant belief makes you a swine.

 

[AV1611VET]

I doubt he "believes" in evolution. If you ask him again I am sure he will say he accepts the evidence.

Tomato - tomatto.

If he accepts the evidence, I have to wonder who is presenting it.

 

[In situ]

My Apple Challenge II

Ok, but besides in your imagination, where is this apple?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, but besides in your imagination, where is this apple?

Cute.

 

[In situ]

Tomato - tomatto.

If he accepts the evidence, I have to wonder who is presenting it.

I am just opposing your, intentionally or not, misleading choice of words. I do not agree with an implicit statements that suggests that the theory of evolution is based on some kind of a belief when in reality it is a scientific theory with a framework of explanation based on well documented observational evidence, from multiple scientific deciplines, that indenependetly supports the theory and its conclusions.

 

[In situ]

Cute.

Is this supposed to turn into your usual rhetoric in where your claims never really are to be scrutinized

Just to remind you, your claim is that the laws of physics has been changed, or different, in the past. However, there is no evidence that I am aware of that - even remotely- indicates that this is the case. On the contrary all the evidence - I know of - points at the opposite.

 

[AV1611VET]

... when in reality it is a scientific theory with a framework of explanation based on well documented observational evidence, from multiple scientific deciplines, that indenependetly supports the theory and its conclusions.

No it is not.

It is a philosophy based on the rudiments (elements) of the world.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Paul also refers to it as ...

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

... comparing it to fables, and says it ministers questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith.

Something evolutionists certainly demonstrate.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just to remind you, your claim is that the laws of physics has been changed, or different, in the past.

Link please?

 

[In situ]

You think it's ok to kill babies, because you think you have the authority to define when a baby becomes a baby. That arrogant belief makes you a swine.

Please point at the post in where I wrote I think it is okay to kill babies.

 

[In situ]

No it is not.

It is a philosophy based on the rudiments (elements) of the world.

No it is not, and you know it. For instance is not a philosophy that birds have evolved from feathered dinosaurs (more specific a branch called velociraptors) but but an explanation that is supported with numerous scientific evidence such as:

The observed fact - long before Darwin - that all life creates a nested set.
The observed fact that offspring inherent traits from their parents.
The observed fact that more offspring are born than can reproduce.
The observed fact that selection operates in nature.

These and thousands and thousands of other observed facts from many independent scientific fields are observational evidence which all points to one single conclusion; life has evolved from simpler forms during a very long period of time.

That is not what we normally call a philosophy. But if you like to redefine the word 'philosophy' as well, be my guest, but don't count on me to understand what you are talking about then.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Paul also refers to it as ...

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

... comparing it to fables, and says it ministers questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith.

Something evolutionists certainly demonstrate.

Are these, cherry picked bible quotes, supposed to be your evidence that the theory of evolution is a philosophy?

May I ask, why is it that fundamentalist can pick freely and quote anything they like from the bible, rip it out from its original context, and claim it to be valid to apply it to whatever situation they like, while when none-fundamentalists do the same then they are accused for taking things out of their context?

Why is it that YOUR interpretation is correct?

 

[Edmond Smith]

Well, I don't believe there exists any gods which implies you must consider me to be a swine as well. What exctely was it I wrote in this thread that earned me that honor?

Matthew 7
1Judge not, that you be not judged.

2For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you measure, it shall be measured to you again.

3And why behold you the speck that is in your brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye?

4Or how will you say to your brother, Let me pull the speck out of your eye; and, behold, a beam is in your own eye?

5You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast out the speck out of your brother's eye.

6Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and tear you.

Other words, After you have learned that you can't judge people into hell (your not God). That's what verses 1 & 2 mean.
And you learn to get yourself right with God (consider what is in your life, then remove it), by repenting and placing your trust in Him. Verses 3 thru5
You are to go out and spread the gospel, but be careful for those who won't accept it (the swine), because they will turn it around on you and try to trample it under their feet.

You also, have to remember to whom Christ was speaking to. He was speaking to the Sanheidren and the Pharisees of the synagogue's who were basically preaching what they wanted to preach and not God's word.
Being called a swine from a jew to a jew is as bad as making a muslim eat pork. it was considered a pretty deep insult back then.
Because Christ aslo called them hypocrites.

 

[In situ]

Link please?

Are you asking me to provide you with a link to your own - repeated - claim that god magically suspended the laws of physics and that the laws of physics was different in the past?

 

[Smidlee]

Tomato - tomatto.

If he accepts the evidence, I have to wonder who is presenting it.

Here is evidence of evolution. Evolutionist accepts this as truth.