Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[Smidlee]

I accept it as watered down diluted part truths mixed eithvSatanic innuendos...does that count?

Thus saith the word of Talkorigins "Thou art a glorified ape."

 

[dad]

Thus saith the word of Talkorigins "Thou art a glorified ape."

I would say to Satan who inspired that tommyrot, and his little deciples here, that an ape is btter off than their destiny.

 

[dad]

You are assuming a different state past.



You are assuming that Scripture is infallible.



There is no reason to assume he was there.



You are not God, even though you apparently like to pretend that you are.

This is not about you trying to say God does not live, or that Scripture is wrong. Flush.

 

[Smidlee]

I would say to Satan who inspired that tommyrot, and his little deciples here, that an ape is btter off than their destiny.

How dare you doubt the most holiest of Talkorigin prophets, Douglas Theobald.

 

[dad]

How dare you doubt the most holiest of Talkorigin prophets, Douglas Theobald.

I don't care if the ape is bald or not.

 

[ScottA]

You mean you don't accept Talkorigins website as THE TRUTH.

I didn't know about it, and after visiting their website for a brief statement of what they believe...I didn't find a simple answer...so I still don't know about them.

 

[Smidlee]

I didn't know about it, and after visiting their website for a brief statement of what they believe...I didn't find a simple answer...so I still don't know about them.

This is where Loudmouth gets most of his so called "evidence" from. The Evolution bible for evolutionist.

 

[HitchSlap]

This is where Loudmouth gets most of his so called "evidence" from. The Evolution bible for evolutionist.

Yep, it's a solid site, as far as evidence goes.

 

[Smidlee]

You see. When the evolutionist demands evidence they don't want you to quote scripture but Talkorigins, the evolution bible.

(I used to quote Talkorigins here years ago thinking this was what the scientist believed but I was told it was badly overrated and don't rely on it.)

 

[HitchSlap]

You see. When the evolutionist demands evidence they don't want you to quote scripture but Talkorigins, the evolution bible.

Not sure why conflating myth with observable empirical data is so hard for you guys to comprehend that this is a bad idea to negotiate the world.
Meh, guess that's why we have scientists and theologians.

 

[Smidlee]

Not sure why conflating myth with observable empirical data is so hard for you guys to comprehend that this is a bad idea to negotiate the world.
Meh, guess that's why we have scientists and theologians.

Which is why I don't believe in the evolution myth as it doesn't stand up to observable empirical evidence. It's also self-refuting since it uses human reasoning to explain away human reasoning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My actions are fine.

Seriously, they aren't. You are in denial.

LOL...here we go again.
Your lack of knowledge of God, therefore you state your opinions and show no evidence that the version or my interpretation of the Gospel to be wrong.

Wrong again. You seem to be purposefully misunderstanding my point.I think that you are pretending now.

Shows you have no concept of science in your own right. Shows arrogance and lack of wanting to learn the truth.

Wrong again. Since you keep denying all of science you are in no place to make such a judgment.

Not afraid of something that can be shown wrong.
Just you haven't done it.

Wrong again. You have not been paying attention.

Nope, you have stated your opinion on your belief in God and why you don't believe. You have stated the truth at least that there are people out there who worship false gods. And it's your opinion that my interpretation is wrong.
Where I have showed you that it's correct and true according to His Word.

Nope, you are being dishonest again. You will never learn if you can't be honest with yourself.

Because your corrections are incorrect. They're your opinions, that's all. No evidence to the contrary.

Wrong yet again. I gave you explanations. I gave you evidence. At the very best you did not understand.

I'm not threatening, I'm warning you. I said, IF you die in your sins...that's not a threat...you will die someday, hopefully a long time from now. and when the time comes and you die, you will be judged, and if you have not repented of your sins, those sins will by why you are punished.
Quite simple really. Yeah, but it's the base of my subject. Your sins. Unless you've repented and turned away from them and place you trust in Christ since last night. Then I would stand corrected.

There you go back to spouting pitiful empty threats again.

You know, your right. Even the Bible tells us that there would be a great falling away near the end. It's sad, but it's to be expected.
Now, the world you live in may be getting better and better. But in the real world, because people have lost their first love, Wars and rumors of wars, Pestilence, Murder has risen, abortions, terrorism, lying, dishonoring parents, using God's name in vain, adultery...etc.etc. the list goes on and on. and the crazy thing is you spout that evolution is the way to believe...why? It doesn't want to change any of just mentioned. It thrives on chaos and the survival of the fittest, doesn't it?
World isn't better without the knowledge and fear of God. The world is worse without it.
This proves the Bible to be true and faithful, because all of what is happening right now, was written over 1500 years ago, by 40 men who were inspired by God and used as the instruments to put His word to paper.
This is a Christian Forum...it's based on the Christian Religion. And if you are going to try to demean Christianity or The Bible, and expect Christians not to defend....you then need to go to an Atheist forum...there you will get all your false answers, quips, and retorts. treated as if you really know something.

But I what I was describing was a good thing. Your false views paint it as a bad thing. And atheists as a whole have better understanding of God then most Christians. That is why they are atheists in the first place. Once you understand your God you will be able to take off your blinders and see.

It has been demonstrated, billions of times. And I can demonstrate it, in one word....Christ.
strawman, never said science couldn't explain new traits.
I said it can't explain how the information gets in there to create those new traits. They understand what happens, they just don't know why it happens or what put that information there in the first place.
The reason why science cannot explain how man evolved? easy answer, they're looking at the wrong information. The Bible tells us exactly how we got here. God said Let there be man, and he created man. Then he said let there be a help mate for man, and God created woman. That isn't that hard.
Like they can't answer the question, where did the first mammal come from? (crickets sounding in the background)

I answered your where did the first mammal come from. And you keep using the phrase "strawman" incorrectly. Also I explained to you why the term "information" is misleading and wrong. It appears that you want to be deceptive. Also you know the rule. If you don't understand the short correction I can give you when you Gish like this then ask in a separate post. Please try to ask proper questions.

Yep, it's your opinion that it's correct. And your ton of scientific evidence,....is just speculative, unproven, guesses.

Wrong again and in more than one way. You really need to learn what evidence is. You keep saying that you have evidence when you have none and you do not understand the evidence that others has. Evidence is never speculative or unproven or guesses. That is what you have. That is all that you have. If you understand scientific evidence the evidence itself is undeniable. By denying it you demonstrate that you do not understand what evidence is. You may disagree with the conclusions based upon that evidence, but you only make yourself look ignorant denying it.

Wrong, Because the Creator of this Earth God, used all of those sciences in the creating of this World. How? Because He is the originator of those sciences.

And you have no evidence for this claim.

No, you didn't say those words. But you sure imply it. I agree science is a strong tool to gain information, don't doubt that a bit. But it's not the only way, either.

You can't seem to find a better way.

LOL....wrong.
The Bible is a testimony. Of Christ.
The important parts, there are tons of eyewitnesses. Christ life, thousands of witnesses, His ministry, A few more thousand,
His death, again a few more, and His Resurrection. Thousands. He was here for 40 days after His resurrection, preaching the gospel and preparing the Apostles. There over 5000 witnesses to this...remember now. back in that day they only counted the men...there were women and children to...so well over double the amount witness these things.
and the wife anecdote was just an example.

Wrong. It is simply the writings of men. Many of them were ignorant men by today's standards. And sorry, but the 500 or 5,000 witnesses is only a tale told by a non-eyewitness in your Bible. It is very poor circular reasoning on your part.

Again, plenty of evidence, you just don't accept it.

That is because the concept is beyond you. You don't seem to understand what is and what is not evidence.

Please, let me have your opinion on why there was no flood.

What, don't be rude. Ignorant and rude are a very bad combination.

You already know that ice floats. The ice in Antarctica and Greenland is over 500,000 years old in spots. By your own admission, if there was a flood that ice would have been destroyed.

Also I went over why there was no evidence of a flood when we would expect to see it. It would take over 5 miles of water to cover the Earth and there is no evidence of that.

Now why on Earth do you think there was a flood? Also I asked what kind of engineer you were. Why didn't you answer?[/quote]

 

[HitchSlap]

Which is why I don't believe in the evolution myth as it doesn't stand up to observable empirical evidence. It's also self-refuting since it uses human reasoning to explain away human reasoning.

Thanks for making my point. I'll continue to let scientists inform me about the natural world, and take your religious dogma with a grain of salt.

 

[Smidlee]

Thanks for making my point. I'll continue to let scientists inform me about the natural world, and take your religious dogma with a grain of salt.

I have no trouble with the scientists informing me about the natural world but when they try to make claims that they can't back up or claims that goes beyond their own understanding then of course I can dismiss their worldview.

 

[ScottA]

Yep, it's a solid site, as far as evidence goes.

That's cool. Nothing wrong with rendering unto science what is science.

 

[HitchSlap]

I have no trouble with the scientists informing me about the natural world but when they try to make claims that they can't back up or claims that goes beyond their own understanding then of course I can dismiss their worldview.

Go go get 'em kid. You tell 'em.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is reason to absolutely know man was here. God says so. Science runs around like a turkey squawking 'man was not here because he left no remains we can see'. Science cannot say whether we would have fossolized, they only say we should have according to present laws!

Sorry, but God does not say so. You are conflating the Bible, a book written by extremely fallible men, with God. That is blasphemy. I do believe that there are rules against blasphemy dad.

And if you want to claim that physical laws were different then the burden of proof is upon you. All we can say is that there is no evidence of this different state.

But don't worry dad, we all know that you have nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no trouble with the scientists informing me about the natural world but when they try to make claims that they can't back up or claims that goes beyond their own understanding then of course I can dismiss their worldview.

When has a scientist ever made a statement that he could not back up? And if some scientists claims went beyond his understanding he would quickly be corrected by other scientists. You don't seem to understand how scientists communicate with each other at all.

 

[HitchSlap]

That's cool. Nothing wrong with rendering unto science what is science.

Exactly, and nothing wrong with rendering woo-woo unto Deepocket Chopra what is Chopra.

 

[dad]

And if you want to claim that physical laws were different then the burden of proof is upon you. .

If you want to claim they were the same the burden is on you...fess up you don't know. We all may safely trust God.