Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[Kylie]

So we hold a vote as to what the unknown is. OK.

No. Science is not a democracy.

You have no idea how science actually works, do you?

Done. My ideas suggest God is real and true and the bible is true and creation also. The test has been over all time and Jesus closed the deal forever.

Christians are a minority in the world. The number of non-Christians is much larger than the number of Christians. Only 32% of the world's population are Christians. So 68% of people think Christianity is wrong.

So, if we hold a vote (like how you thought science works), and two thirds of voters voted against something, how could you justify it to be right anyway?

Doesn't sound so settled to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow you really have a handle on the creation issues.

Please, creationists have no clue themselves. How am I supposed to design their tests for them. Until creationists learn how to test their ideas they have no scientific evidence for their beliefs. That is the fault of creationists, not those on the evolution side. Those on the evolution side are responsible for finding scientific evidence for evolution and those on the creationist side are responsible for finding evidence for their claims. Sadly creationists have no scientific evidence because they are rather cowardly as a group. Scientists have mountains of evidence for evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Christians are a minority in the world.

Christianity can handle it.

At one point, we were only 12, then 70, then 120, then 3000, then multitudes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientists have mountains of evidence for evolution.

Pile it up then and watch our faith move it aside.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pile it up then and watch our faith move it aside.

Sorry, but faith has never moved a mountain. I have seen the claim, but it has never happened.

 

[Kylie]

Pile it up then and watch our faith move it aside.

You've had over a century. Still waiting.

Meanwhile, the support for evolution continues to make the pile bigger. When will you guys realise that it's too big to shift? I mean, if the POPE can, surely you can as well, yes?

 

[dad]

No. Science is not a democracy.

You have no idea how science actually works, do you?

After reading your posts it takes a few minutes to remember.

Christians are a minority in the world.

Won't be anything but soon.

The number of non-Christians is much larger than the number of Christians. Only 32% of the world's population are Christians. So 68% of people think Christianity is wrong.

If the universe turned on their godless opinion you might be onto something.

So, if we hold a vote (like how you thought science works), and two thirds of voters voted against something, how could you justify it to be right anyway?

Science doesn't get a vote, it is disqualified. Insignificant. Ignorant.

 

[Kylie]

Christianity can handle it.

At one point, we were only 12, then 70, then 120, then 3000, then multitudes.

So you think Dad's idea of using a vote to determine truth is a bad one?

 

[dad]

Please, creationists have no clue themselves. How am I supposed to design their tests for them. Until creationists learn how to test their ideas they have no scientific evidence for their beliefs. That is the fault of creationists, not those on the evolution side. Those on the evolution side are responsible for finding scientific evidence for evolution and those on the creationist side are responsible for finding evidence for their claims. Sadly creationists have no scientific evidence because they are rather cowardly as a group. Scientists have mountains of evidence for evolution.

Empty blab.

 

[dad]

So you think Dad's idea of using a vote to determine truth is a bad one?

Actually, you said

"Get other people to put it to the test. If it withstands those tests, then it's likely to be real."

So I responded..

"So we hold a vote as to what the unknown is. OK"

The point being no one cares what you think the unknown is like.

 

[Kylie]

After reading your posts it takes a few minutes to remember.

Again with the childish insults?

Won't be anything but soon.

It WON'T be anything but a minority? So it will remain a minority?

I

f the universe turned on their godless opinion you might be onto something.

So if you agree that an argument from popularity is not the way science works, why in the world did you propose that science gets its answers by a VOTE?

Science doesn't get a vote, it is disqualified. Insignificant. Ignorant.

Bit rich coming from someone using the internet.

Or does the internet, computers, etc not use scientific principles?

 

[Kylie]

Actually, you said

"Get other people to put it to the test. If it withstands those tests, then it's likely to be real."

So I responded..

"So we hold a vote as to what the unknown is. OK"

The point being no one cares what you think the unknown is like.

You really don't know how this works. Getting other people to check your work is not a vote.

If my daughter is doing her maths homework, she might get me and my husband to check her work. She might make a mistake in one of her answers, and only I notice it. By your reasoning, I am wrong, since both my daughter and my husband concluded that her answer was correct. Of course, it doesn't work that way. If she is wrong, then she is wrong, even if nobody noticed it but me.

You really need to learn what science is. At the moment, you aren't arguing against science, you are arguing against a strawman, and you are just embarrassing yourself.

 

[dad]

It WON'T be anything but a minority? So it will remain a minority?

Only believers will inhabit the earth.

So if you agree that an argument from popularity is not the way science works, why in the world did you propose that science gets its answers by a VOTE?

Look at what you said.

""Get other people to put it to the test. If it withstands those tests, then it's likely to be real."

FYI science cannot test the past future or spiritual, so is useless in the key aspects of the issues aurrounding creation.

Bit rich coming from someone using the internet.

Nothing to do with creation. Science is OK for some things in the here and now.

 

[dad]

You really don't know how this works. Getting other people to check your work is not a vote.

You don't know how it works, science can't check.

If my daughter is doing her maths homework, she might get me and my husband to check her work. She might make a mistake in one of her answers, and only I notice it. By your reasoning, I am wrong, since both my daughter and my husband concluded that her answer was correct. Of course, it doesn't work that way. If she is wrong, then she is wrong, even if nobody noticed it but me.

Yeah yeah, if you buy a burger and think it is green and smells bad you can ask another customer to check it. You can't check the future or the spiritual or the state of the past.

 

[AV1611VET]

I mean, if the POPE can, surely you can as well, yes?

The POPE can sanction women preachers too.

Ain't gonna happen in our church.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you think Dad's idea of using a vote to determine truth is a bad one?

I think I know dad enough to be able to ascertain that that is not what he sanctions.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Pile it up then and watch our faith move it aside.

You think you can move a mountain, then? Go for it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Okay ... use the Flood then.

Why would I need to use the Flood?

Why ask for the mechanics behind how the Grand Canyon was formed, if you don't believe the Flood was global in the first place?

Why believe that a recent global flood produced the Grand Canyon?

Why would a person, who can barely add, ask someone to explain calculus to them?

Why would a person who can barely add claim that others are wrong about calculus?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why believe that a recent global flood produced the Grand Canyon?

I don't believe the Flood produced the Grand Canyon.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't believe the Flood produced the Grand Canyon.

Then why mention it?