Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[HitchSlap]

It is an exercise in getting outside the fishbowl of life, to expand your horizon beyond the natural world. To do otherwise, is to accept that humanity is less than eternal and merely organic.

That's my point; there is no getting "out of the fishbowl," all we can observe is our bowl, and there's only one best way to evaluate those observations, and it's evaluated collectively, over decades - continually refining our understanding of the natural world. In short, we have an excellent explanation at this point, and it all point to "less than eternal and merely organic." The sooner you accept this, the better off you'll be.

 

[HitchSlap]

If you did not know there was something beyond to see, then yes, that would be true...but only to those who don't know. But that would mean that you have not been paying attention to the multitude of witnesses that have returned from over the horizon and told what they saw.

But, do not misunderstand, nobody is here to drag you over the hill...we're simply talking about our experience, an experience which, yes, is out of this world. It's really quite simple, like we went to a movie and you didn't. We have no need to prove anything to those who don't have enough interest to go see for themselves, nor could we...you either go, or you don't. The only other thing we could do is buy your ticket for you...and we have.

And much like a movie, you are entertaining.

 

[Hoghead1]

Life, ScottA, is both organic and eternal.

 

[ScottA]

That's my point; there is no getting "out of the fishbowl," all we can observe is our bowl, and there's only one best way to evaluate those observations, and it's evaluated collectively, over decades - continually refining our understanding of the natural world. In short, we have an excellent explanation at this point, and it all point to "less than eternal and merely organic." The sooner you accept this, the better off you'll be.

I will not be accepting what I know to be false.

But it is reasonable that you should work with what you have, and yet it is also reasonable to consider that the fish in the fishbowl would arrive at nothing of the truth, by studying their fishbowl, except in defining their limitations. But the puzzling part, is that you would keep going back to it, while millions have shared another alternative. At the very least, within the fishbowl analogy, it would make sense to remain open-minded and hopeful, rather than campaign for the fishbowl while plugging your ears to words from the outside. Just sayin'.

 

[HitchSlap]

I will not be accepting what I know to be false.

But it is reasonable that you should work with what you have, and yet it is also reasonable to consider that the fish in the fishbowl would arrive at nothing of the truth, by studying their fishbowl, except in defining their limitations. But the puzzling part, is that you would keep going back to it, while millions have shared another alternative. At the very least, within the fishbowl analogy, it would make sense to remain open-minded and hopeful, rather than campaign for the fishbowl while plugging your ears to word from the outside. Just sayin'.

At the very least, you've demonstrated the fact that millions of people are capable of making poop up, because they're uncomfortable not knowing, and are comforted by wish thinking. It's one way of negotiating the world, albeit, not the best.

 

[dad]

"The premise of the fine-tuned Universe assertion is that a small change in several of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the Universe radically different. As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

I do not go along with Hawking, I was just saying some people believe that there has been change. There are two theories one proposed by Gould who is not alive anymore to defend his theory. He says if you go back to the beginning and started all over again then everything would turn out different then what we now have. Then you have the Evo Devo school that believes as you do in the consistence and that you would always end up with the same results as what we have today.

Since there was no luck involved, but just God, creation and what laws He sets up in various times, one could not go back and hope for some different result.

 

[HitchSlap]

Since there was no luck involved, but just God, creation and what laws He sets up in various times, one could not go back and hope for some different result.

Split-merge, right David?

 

[Loudmouth]

The horizon is not humanity crying out for you to come see. Some come, some do not.

So claims a human. Still just the words of humans.

 

[dad]

Split-merge, right David?

That is a name we could call it Frank. A different state future or past might work too. Different nature. Former state. Etc. By the way, I don't use real names on the internet, so if you are referring to a name I may have used one week, in some site I posted in, forget it.

 

[HitchSlap]

That is a name we could call it Frank. A different state future or past might work too. Different nature. Former state. Etc. By the way, I don't use real names on the internet, so if you are referring to a name I may have used one week, in some site I posted in, forget it.

David Sanjay? Split / merge?

 

[ScottA]

At the very least, you've demonstrated the fact that millions of people are capable of making poop up, because they're uncomfortable not knowing, and are comforted by wish thinking. It's one way of negotiating the world, albeit, not the best.

Granted, faith and "belief" have confused the statements from those of us who do not present our information that way, but "know" of what we speak.

But, none of us is "negotiating the world." We all live among others that share different experiences, and why wouldn't we? But if you never trust what others are telling you or you didn't understand, you would never go to the doctor, never do a bunch of things...and "verifying" what they say is a bunch of malarkey too, just another term for who you are going to "trust" with what you don't understand. Nobody can "know" everything. The verifying trust ladder, is just another form of "believing" and having "faith."

 

[joshua 1 9]

Since there was no luck involved, but just God, creation and what laws He sets up in various times, one could not go back and hope for some different result.

We have freedom to choose if we want to follow God or not. We can choose life, health and prosperity or we can choose death, sickness and poverty. That is the choice we all are given from God. People can choose to eat junk food that will make them sick or people can choose to eat healthy food and be healthy. God gives them that choice.

 

[HitchSlap]

Granted, faith and "belief" have confused the statements from those of us who do not present our information that way, but "know" of what we speak.

But, none of us is "negotiating the world." We all live among others that share different experiences, and why wouldn't we? But if you never trust what others are telling you or you didn't understand, you would never go to the doctor, never do a bunch of things...and "verifying" what they say is a bunch of malarkey too, just another term for who you are going to "trust" with what you don't understand. Nobody can "know" everything. The verifying trust ladder, is just another form of "believing" and having "faith."

One only "knows" what can be demonstrated. Otherwise, it's only a belief.

 

[Edmond Smith]

What childish insults? Those are all accurate descriptions. And yes, mammal tells you that you are a vertebrate, verterbrates are a larger group. As you go back further and further in time the size of the group that describes you has to get larger and larger. Just as the each of these groups are keep growing in number:

Calling me ignorant. Is an insult.

You, the descendants of your father, the descendants of your grandfather, the descendants of your great grandfather (lets' make them all the direct male line for ease).

Never disagreed with this. That doesn't prove Evolutionary change. My fathers descendants were human, as I am human.

Don't complain about being insulted when you made rather a rather foolish statement, and you have blown this up when I told you if you want answers that you should ask questions one at a time politely. You are both rude and wrong, that is a very bad combination. I am merely rude at times. Rude but correct when dealing with the ignorant is understandable. But here is what you said:

"Evolution isn't demonstrable. Show me just one Instance of one kind changing to another kind.
I agree in microevolution...where one bacteria changes and becomes another type of bacteria and how there are different types of dogs, cats and such.
But man from ape? show me the evidence of this, the fossil record of it, the observable demonstrative evidence for this."

Since you used a worthless and undefined term your complaint has no merit. I already explained to you how there is no "change of kind" in evolution. Until you come up with a working definition of "kind" I will use a working one. I make it synonymous to "clade"

Specifically, the Flood account of Genesis 6-8 demonstrates that limited biological change can occur and has already occurred. When God commanded Noah to bring the land-dwelling, air-breathing “kinds” on board the Ark, He required that “male and female” of each kind be taken. This implies that reproductive compatibility identifies membership within a kind. Breeding experiments identify the classification rank of family (kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species) as roughly defining the boundaries of each kind.
Since Noah brought only two of each kind instead of two of each species, we know that many new species have arisen since the Flood. For example, Noah likely had two members of the family Equidae, and from this pair we have the species (horses, donkeys, zebras) and breeds (pony to Clydesdale) of equids observed today. Big biological changes within created kinds are perfectly compatible with Scripture.
Conversely, the Flood account makes it clear that changes from one kind into another are naturally impossible. Again, God commanded Noah to bring two of every land-dwelling, air-breathing kind to preserve the offspring of each kind. If organisms in one kind could be changed into another kind, this command would be superfluous. Hence, biological change on the scale that Darwin proposed is biblically unimaginable.
We can now revisit the evolutionary claim with which we began with and evaluate it without making the erroneous evolutionary assumption that all change is evolutionary change. Using biblically appropriate language, we can interrogate the claim that evolution is fact with two questions. Do we observe change within a kind? Yes. Breeding experiments are the premier example of this. Do we ever observe one kind (i.e., one family) of species change into another kind (or family)? No. Every example of biological change that has ever been observed in real time has been change within a kind.
Even the classic textbook examples of evolution—changes in the size and shape of the beaks of Darwin’s finches, E. coli developing resistance to antibiotics, and HIV developing resistance to the immune system—all demonstrate change within a kind and never change from one kind into another. Evolution, as Darwin conceived it, has never been observed.

There you go...definition of Kind. Try to keep it short...but not easy to do.

Now see this is the ignorant and unsupported sort of claim on your part that earns you ridicule. You have no reliable evidence to support the existence of your God, I have reliable evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

As I have said earlier. I've told you the evidence...creation...is the evidence, you just don't accept that. Can't help you there.

The problem with this is that you run into many inefficiencies and imperfections because of how evolution works. Evolution is not based upon "perfect" or even "good". Evolution is based upon "good enough". You would have to go back and change your creation story because life is not "good". It is barely "good enough".

Well, your correct...evolution isn't good enough...and that isn't good enough for many us to change from believing that God create things to this half way thing of good enough.
Your also correct that life isn't good enough, That's why God is here, and why He sent His Son, because we, none of us are good.
But creation, nope that was perfect.

Gen 1:4
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:10
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:12
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:18
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:21
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:25
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good
Gen 1:31
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day

So, Yeah, Creation is GOOD

And you are wrong. And "Haldane's dilemma" does not exist. It was in an earlier work of Haldane's and he could see that he had an error in it himself. It was later shown not to be a problem. It looks like you have heard of John Sanford, his genetic entropy was refuted before it was even published due to his dishonesty.

In 1993 Walter REMine's book "The Biotic Message"1 hit the street, bringing with it several devastating arguments against evolution that are still clamoring through the halls and smoke rooms of the evolutionary faithful. One of these arguments is based on a paper by J. B. S Haldane in 19572 that showed the reproductive capacity of vertebrates was way too low to pay the costs needed to account for large-scale evolution. This problem is referred to as Haldane's dilemma.

It exist, just you evolution believers, don't want it to exist.

Since there is no reliable evidence of your God or supporting the creation of life by a creator you simply confirmed my claim. You need to learn the concept of scientific evidence. I can help you with that.

there is no scientific evidence that disproves God or disproving that He didn't create.

Very good. Ice floats, even during floods. So that means there was no flood of Noah.

This statement alone answers so many questions I would have asked you.

So because Ice floats in water.
there couldn't have been a flood of water during Noah's time.
Why?
Your logic is a bit off.

1. Ice floats in water.
2. A flood is a large body of water.
therefore in conclusion
3. Ice will float in large amounts of water.

Now if I replace 3 with what you said.

1. Ice floats in water.
2. A flood is a large body of water.
therefore in conclusion:
3. There was no flood.

Which one makes more sense?
And you want me to ask you hard questions?



Once again your understanding is lacking. By your description of your God you called him unrighteous and unjust. Now you might think it is okay to have punishment more severe than the crime, but moral people do not share those beliefs. You belief in an immoral version of God. Not all Christians believe that. And now you have painted your God as a rather petty tyrant. It is all about him according to you. You keep making your God look worse and worse.



No, it is not God's description of himself. At best it is the description of God in the Bible. You keep making the same mistakes. You need to remember there are thousands of versions of the Christian God and yours may not be the right one, if there even is a "right one".





Yes, but you did not seem to understand the answer.





And you have the same problem that they do.



Nope, now you are making equivocation errors at best. "Faith" is what Thomas lacked. Supposedly Jesus wanted people to believe without evidence. That is faith. None of the items on your list used that sort of faith. Those were all beliefs based upon past actions. No faith required.





No, sorry you are of course wrong again. Can you choose to believe that you can fly by flapping your arms? Can you choose to believe in Zeus? I would hope not. And no, there is no choice in believing the theory of evolution. The evidence for it is endless. You may be conflating with people trying to figure out exactly which path evolution took, but even that is not a choice if your beliefs are supported by evidence.



Then you either do not understand "speculation" or you are misapplying it to the theory of evolution, since it is supported by literally mountains of evidence. Actually speculation is a very early part of the scientific process. One looks at data and evidence and tries to think what it means. When an idea is developed in this process it is a hypothesis. Once that hypothesis is confirmed through testing, as evolution has been confirmed time after time then it is no longer speculation. Speculation was part of the process, but the theory of evolution no longer is speculation because it has passed millions of tests.





And you fail immediately. You need to look up "virtual particles"



Sorry, but this is just the failed Kalam argument. It is just another PRATT today since it has been refuted so many times.



No, you don't know how logic works, or else you are lying to yourself. There is nothing illogical about the concept of evolution. You can't even begin to refute it. All you can do is to pull PRATT after PRATT. Again, if you don't like being ridiculed then don't make ridiculous arguments. Ask your questions one at a time and politely and people here will help you.[/QUOTE]

 

[ScottA]

One only "knows" what can be demonstrated. Otherwise, it's only a belief.

Not true. One can indeed "know" what another does not. And given the nature of the subject, your idea of "demonstration" would not work anyway. For instance (and I am sure this has been said to you a thousand times) if one were to "demonstrate" love, the demonstration does nothing to show the kind of demonstrable evidence that you are asking for. Your toolbox is lacking.

 

[HitchSlap]

Not true. One can indeed "know" what another does not. And given the nature of the subject, your idea of "demonstration" would not work anyway. For instance (and I am sure this has been said to you a thousand times) if one were to "demonstrate" love, the demonstration does nothing to show the kind of demonstrable evidence that you are asking for. Your toolbox is lacking.

Except we do know where love is processed in the brain, so toolbox okay.
My statement stands, saying you know something is meaningless unless it can be demonstrated. Take you for instance, your beliefs register high on the metaphysical woo scale, you haven't been able to demonstrate just one of your fantastic pronouncnents, yet can't understand why we ask for evidence.

 

[ScottA]

Except we do know where love is processed in the brain, so toolbox okay.
My statement stands, saying you know something is meaningless unless it can be demonstrated. Take you for instance, your beliefs register high on the metaphysical woo scale, you haven't been able to demonstrate just one of your fantastic pronouncnents, yet can't understand why we ask for evidence.

Love is just an example. So, no, your toolbox is not okay, it's way too small and limited. You are out of your league, and you have some strange idea that the majors should come play in your minor sandlot. It ain't going to happen. So, take the "example", or leave it, but you are not going to get anywhere agreeing with yourself.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Now be fair, the Noah's Ark story is not that silly. Hmm, I guess that it is.

A HUGE amount of research has gone into trying to figure out how farming spread from the middle east to Europe. Noah was simply the first to take his whole farm / show on the road or ark as the case maybe. Natural grains are spread by the wind. With artificial selection the gains have to be gathered and stored and transported. If you want to take Noah and rip his page out of the history book then tell me what you got that you want to replace it with. Good luck getting rid of Noah sense his story is so ingrained and wide spread in so many areas of the world.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Except we do know where love is processed in the brain

Of course we do: oxytocin and vasopressin are the love hormones.

 

[Loudmouth]

Specifically, the Flood account of Genesis 6-8 demonstrates that limited biological change can occur and has already occurred. When God commanded Noah to bring the land-dwelling, air-breathing “kinds” on board the Ark, He required that “male and female” of each kind be taken. This implies that reproductive compatibility identifies membership within a kind. Breeding experiments identify the classification rank of family (kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species) as roughly defining the boundaries of each kind.

First, stories in books don't demonstrate anything.

Second, why can't two species share a common ancestor but not be able to interbreed? We see that horses and donkeys can no longer produce fertile offspring (1 in 10,000 mare mules is fertile), so why couldn't they reach the stage where they couldn't even produce any offspring, fertile or otherwise?