Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[HitchSlap]

So supposed quotes from him were planted on the net in a conspiracy? Bill Gates is another man of modern science that is quoted as wanting to limit population. Seems to be a pattern with some.

You're goofy.

 

[dad]

That error is called "special pleading". It is no more valid when a Hindu or Muslim uses it than when you use it.

You special plead a same state past, because you reject the Special One that created.

 

[dad]

You're goofy.

I just hope I am not one of the folks the important folks think should die while they live.

 

[Davian]

He should get into the climate change racket!

Or get him to deal with my teenagers - they too think they know all there is to know.

 

[dad]

Sorry but the Bible does not do so. That is only your own personal flawed interpretation. The Bible says nothing about the rate of radioactive decay changing, or the speed of light changing.

As you have said "chapter and verse". Odds are that you will simply quote unrelated verses out of context.

No decay in the eternal. No rust or corruption either. Admit it.

 

[dad]

Or get him to deal with my teenagers - they too think they know all there is to know.

They must take after mom?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You special plead a same state past, because you reject the Special One that created.

No, I don't. I point out that there is no evidence to indicate a change of state, therefore there is no valid reason to believe in one.

You don't understand logic. But it is fun to watch you squirm and fail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No decay in the eternal. No rust or corruption either. Admit it.

Again , no evidence of such so no reason to believe it. And you were supposed to support your change of state with Bible verses. I see that you know that there are not any. So, no Biblical reasons for your beliefs and no scientific ones. It seems that you have less than nothing.

 

[dad]

No, I don't. I point out that there is no evidence to indicate a change of state..

All ancient records and scripture actually. No evidence from science to prove a same state past or disprove the actual state past.

 

[dad]

Again , no evidence of such so no reason to believe it. And you were supposed to support your change of state with Bible verses. I see that you know that there are not any. So, no Biblical reasons for your beliefs and no scientific ones. It seems that you have less than nothing.

See anyone making a bible case for a same state past or future here? No.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All ancient records and scripture actually. No evidence from science to prove a same state past or disprove the actual state past.

What "ancient record"? And where in scripture? You do realize that since the Bible's ability to be correct is being questioned you need some other evidence, don't you? Otherwise all you have is circular reasoning and Hinduism is just as valid as Christianity if you make that error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See anyone making a bible case for a same state past or future here? No.

I see only you and one other making claim for a different state past and you two disagree with each other wildly. You need to do better than that.

 

[Davian]

They must take after mom?

As long as they don't take after the mailman.

 

[seashale76]

If there is one thing militant atheists and creationists agree on, it is that the Bible is a science text book. The only difference between them is that the former try to argue that it is full of errors, and the latter that it contains no errors.

They are both operating upon a fundamentally flawed premise.

/thread

 

[ScottA]

How can we establish that the world-bound evidence is not all there is? What mechanism can we use to establish the validity of spiritual claims? How do we know?

Well... Yeah. There's a reason for this. Science works. It demonstrable produces useful, verifiable results, and the scientific method has pretty much completely reshaped almost every aspect of our lives - usually for the better. When scientific experts speak, we listen because they built the world we live in.

By contrast, spiritual experts have provided extremely little of any tangible value. Countless countradictory philosophies, all with very little backing them up, with nothing tangible to show for it. And worse yet, we don't even know how we would quantify this - how in the world do you determine a "spiritual truth"? I have yet to see any method that makes any sense. So when you say this:

You miss one crucial point: it's not an equality of position. Science works. Science provides demonstrable, testable, reliable results, and we can show over and over and over again that, how, and why it works. With spirituality, I'm not even sure how you'd go about showing that there's even a "there" there in the first place. It's not "equal footing" to take validated scientific data - data that is demonstrably true and which we can use to make our world a better place - and place it on equal footing with claims for which there is not even a method of establishing their truth value.

Until you can provide a reliable method for establishing which spiritual claims are true and which are false, and then demonstrate that that method actually is reliable, there can be no even footing.

1. The mechanism used throughout history is "signs." Which, I am not sure will help. If you talked to a passerby they would confirm your own skepticism, and if you talked to the actual people involved they would tell you what I am telling you...so you are back to square one. The better approach would be to realize (take to heart) that there can be quick answers, but you should not expect it, since the matter spans all of history. But a direct approach is the best. Ask God to reveal Himself to you, to give you answers (that's what I did), and then be patient, knowing that it is a big long and drawn out matter.
2. Science simply explains the mechanics. But that is not your question. Your question is: "Why?" and "How?" But you are not going to get that answer from "What?"
3. What is tangible, is of little value if any, regarding this topic. There is plenty to back it up, but as I explained, it is concealed within an environment of confusion (on purpose). But what you have not taken into account, is that the purpose is greater than the environment of confusion. It is the confusion that safeguards the purpose. If you were watching or reading a mystery, it is expected that you should be in this situation of knowing very little and even being suspicious. In fact you would not expect it to be different than this at all.
4. There is no quantification of the infinite.
5. No, it is not an equality of position. And that has been the biggest obstacle. You keep expecting it to be equal, and testable, and demonstrable. If you could just consider it as being completely different...you could give it the consideration that it deserves. But...if you hadn't noticed...that last statement...would mean that you would have to believe that it is possibly true....and that...is the crux of the problem: the answers simply do not transcend unbelief.

...So...if you really want to know, that leaves you with two choices: 1) Believe, or 2) ask, and take our word for it (even if you do not believe it).

 

[HitchSlap]

1. The mechanism used throughout history is "signs."

Did someone say signs??

 

[joshua 1 9]

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

I do not know if there is any truth there at all.

 

[joshua 1 9]

How can we establish that the world-bound evidence is not all there is? What mechanism can we use to establish the validity of spiritual claims? How do we know?



Well... Yeah. There's a reason for this. Science works. It demonstrable produces useful, verifiable results, and the scientific method has pretty much completely reshaped almost every aspect of our lives - usually for the better. When scientific experts speak, we listen because they built the world we live in.

By contrast, spiritual experts have provided extremely little of any tangible value. Countless countradictory philosophies, all with very little backing them up, with nothing tangible to show for it. And worse yet, we don't even know how we would quantify this - how in the world do you determine a "spiritual truth"? I have yet to see any method that makes any sense. So when you say this:



You miss one crucial point: it's not an equality of position. Science works. Science provides demonstrable, testable, reliable results, and we can show over and over and over again that, how, and why it works. With spirituality, I'm not even sure how you'd go about showing that there's even a "there" there in the first place. It's not "equal footing" to take validated scientific data - data that is demonstrably true and which we can use to make our world a better place - and place it on equal footing with claims for which there is not even a method of establishing their truth value.

Until you can provide a reliable method for establishing which spiritual claims are true and which are false, and then demonstrate that that method actually is reliable, there can be no even footing.

Science built the twin towers and science tore them down. Why is the power to build better then the power to destroy? Science built Hiroshima and science destoryed Hiroshima. Why is the power to build greater then the power to destroy? Either way science is only able to use the laws of physics that God created.

 

[Loudmouth]

What I said was that there was a beginning in the middle east and farming spread out to the rest of the world from that point of origin or beginning. Recorded history is a valuable tool in understanding what is going on. There is no conflict between a true man of God and a true man of science. There can only be a conflict if they are not true to what they claim to believe. We can only go where the evidence leads us. The written historical record does not conflict with the natural record they compliment each other. The evidence only needs to be properly handled and understood.

Still waiting for the evidence that Noah spread humanity and farming as you claimed.

Evolution is all about beginnings.

No, it isn't. It is about change in species.

 

[Loudmouth]

Science built the twin towers and science tore them down. Why is the power to build better then the power to destroy? Science built Hiroshima and science destoryed Hiroshima. Why is the power to build greater then the power to destroy? Either way science is only able to use the laws of physics that God created.

Humans did those things.