Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[Subduction Zone]

We entertain you...LOL
We believe that a Creator created creation.
You believe that something comes from nothing.

We can show that something came from "nothing". You don't have any reliable evidence for your creator. Worse yet you have to keep denying science to support your claims.

We believe we are wonderfully and fearfully made by God.
You believe that we either come from nothing..no..not that...uh from a single cell...wait not that either, we're not sure exactly, but we know we came from somewhere..wait, we come from apes...we can't prove it exactly...we know that we humans match 99% in the DNA...but oh I forget...there is not transitional fossils...oh wait we'll find some...well we did find a tooth one day and swore up and down it was early man...but uh...it turned out to be pigs tooth.

Really? Are you that ignorant? One small mistake is made and you can't forget it? But then there are no real thinkers on your side.

LOL...yeah we crack you up?

Yes, but you are just like the last guy laughing in the room. You laugh, but you did not get the joke. Meanwhile you gave us more material in this post by showing your incredible ignorance once again. And there are countless transitional fossils. Just because you don't know what a transitional fossil is does not mean that they do not exist.

 

[Smidlee]

How does your misinterpretation of that article support your claim at all? By the way, we don't grab at straws, we don't have to that is your sin.

So you think that someone just sitting back and watching babies get killed is a sign of morality?
If I wasn't going to do anything about it I surely wouldn't want to watch it happening.
This is a great example of evolutionist belief causing to see something that isn't there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you think that someone just sitting back and watching babies get killed is a sign of morality?
If I wasn't going to do anything about it I surely wouldn't want to watch it happening.
This is a great example of evolutionist belief causing to see something that isn't there.

They were shown a film. They could not do anything. Even the apes knew that. They reacted to the killing negatively just like a human would. Or would you try to jump through the screen? The apes were too intelligent to do that.

So once again, what did you think that you proved by your misanalysis of that article?

 

[Smidlee]

There's nothing at all mythological about pointing to a common ancestor. In fact, Japanese scientists located a prime candidate back in 2007.

In this video about bird evolution at 2:20. Notice the chart has all the creatures and birds coming from an unknown mythological creature.

 

[Smidlee]

They were shown a film. They could not do anything. Even the apes knew that. They reacted to the killing negatively just like a human would. Or would you try to jump through the screen? The apes were too intelligent to do that.

So once again, what did you think that you proved by your misanalysis of that article?

From the article again " there was only limited evidence they became agitated or reacted to them."

 

[AV1611VET]

There's nothing at all mythological about pointing to a common ancestor. In fact, Japanese scientists located a prime candidate back in 2007.

Mothra?

 

[Subduction Zone]

From the article again " there was only limited evidence they became agitated or reacted to them."

.
Fine, there was limited reaction. But again it was a film. At worst it was a bad experiment. It really did not provide too much evidence for anything either way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In this video about bird evolution at 2:20. Notice the chart has all the creatures and birds coming from an unknown mythological creature.

Yes, but it is a bogus source. So some idiot on YouTube does not understand the theory of evolution. What is that supposed to prove?

Oh my God. What a moron the YouTuber is. He talked about tails "disevolving". As I thought he has no understanding of the theory that he does not understand. Not the best source.

Try again.

 

[Smidlee]

Yes, but it is a bogus source. So some idiot on YouTube does not understand the theory of evolution. What is that supposed to prove?

Oh my God. What a moron the YouTuber is. He talked about tails "disevolving". As I thought he has no understanding of the theory that he does not understand. Not the best source.

Try again.

That's just it no one understanding evolution. Also I put up that video referring to that chart and all you did is calling him names.

 

[dad]

Okay. Thanks. I'm guessing that God provided the right temperature too. I mean, too hot or too cold and plants couldn't survive.

Sounds perfectly reasonable.

Unless one thought He was an incompetent creator or not really creator at all. In such a case, one might have doubts. My suggestion for anyone in that boat is to really pray and immerse oneself in the word. Daily. Drink it in. Faith comes by hearing the word of God.

He provides the light for New Jerusalem, and no rational person would think it was freezing there. There are palm trees there you know. Lots and lots of them.

 

[dad]

It's man that determine right and wrong. You can't determine what good and evil from nature. I agree 100% that man is not the final arbiter of what right and wrong... That would be God...

Right. Not Obama, Subductionzone, Hitler or anyone else.

 

[dad]

Barbarian observes:
It must seem like cheating to creationists, who are locked into their new doctrine, unable to change. Meanwhile, science modifies theories as facts indicate a need for it. However, evolution has not been put into doubt if it turns out that neutral mutations have a role in phylogenesis. And so far, Darwin's four points are as solid as ever.



If you don't know anything about his theory, what makes you think you can comment on it? No wonder you get defeated so often; you don't know what you're talking about.

Science must modify the nonsense it spouted once it is exposed as wrong.

 

[dad]

• 
  
• : an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

1. 
   
2. 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
   
   
3. 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
   
   
4. 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

1. Science...to a tee.

 

[dad]

Barbarian observes:
It must seem like cheating to creationists, who are locked into their new doctrine, unable to change. Meanwhile, science modifies theories as facts indicate a need for it. However, evolution has not been put into doubt if it turns out that neutral mutations have a role in phylogenesis. And so far, Darwin's four points are as solid as ever.



If you don't know anything about his theory, what makes you think you can comment on it? No wonder you get defeated so often; you don't know what you're talking about.

I know what spirit someone is from. Darwin was not from God's spirit..hence, the points I mentioned are cool. If you want to bring up the nincompoop 4 points of his, then do it.

 

[dad]

To weigh in late on the question: Does Science Agree With the Bible?

No!

That just illustrates that the word science has been abused. Real science does...the Satanic fable factory of so called science of course does not.

 

[iovere]

That just illustrates that the word science has been abused. Real science does...the Satanic fable factory of so called science of course does not.

Nonsense. The bible is riddled with errors. It has been pointed out many times in this thread, very patiently I would add.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's just it no one understanding evolution. Also I put up that video referring to that chart and all you did is calling him names.

Wrong. Creationists won't let themselves understand evolution. Plenty of people understand it. To not accept it it is almost guaranteed that you won't let yourself understand it.

And Smidlee, I pointed out a clear error by that fool. Plus I never "called names". Pointing out that someone is a moron when they are being a moron is not name calling.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right. Not Obama, Subductionzone, Hitler or anyone else.

No, definitely not God. And why did you bring up two other Christians?

 

[Edmond Smith]

Please note that the theory of evolution does not fit those definitions. You are making an equivocation error. Do you know what that is? When someone is saying "Food is religion in this house" that is an example of hyperbole. You really need to brush up on your language skills.

And I see that you can't justify your refuted flood story. Don't worry, no flood believer can. To believe in a worldwide flood you have to reject all of science.

I wasn't speaking of just the theory of evolution. I was speaking of your belief system into the theory of evolution. Your actions and you belief in it, makes it a religion.

I don't have to justify the flood story. Because it's the truth. You don't want to believe in it, so no matter what evidence I can show you, you'd just deny them. I believe it to be true and so does many others. I'm trying to convince you of that.

Just that you have sin in your life. You don't believe, okay. Sorry you don't. But you still have sin in your life. And one day you will be judged for those sins, whether you believe or not.
If you know of the 10 commandments, do you follow them? I know I've broken them, Thru God's word I saw thru the law that I have sinned, Thankfully, I repented and put my trust in Jesus.
That's the most important information you need to hear about the Bible, than you'll ever hear. One day, you'll die, hopefully for not a long time, but you will. And you'll meet God. I just hope that you have found out the truth of the Word tells us and that you have repented and placed your trust I Christ.

What you believe in doesn't matter as much as, Is what you believe in to be true?

 

[Edmond Smith]

And quite often both the science and the history are wrong.

Please show me where it is wrong on both?