tdidymas
Newbie
- Aug 28, 2014
- 2,323
- 998
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
And yet, I showed that the observance of supernovas contradicts your interpretation that the universe was created on day 4 of 6 24 hour days. I would say it has occurred. But in this you disagree, and this is why this subject is so controversial.Not yet.
This is your response to my statement "And if a traditional interpretation of some verse of scripture contradicts what is observed in nature, then is it possible that the traditional interpretation of scripture is wrong?" Yes, it is a distinct possibility.
You did practically, since you mentioned Dr. Lisle, which I had to google to find out what you were talking about. That led to the link I posted, in which I refuted his hypothesis. Ok, my mistake, I posted the link, but this is beside the point.I didn’t provide a link.
Yep, a straw man, just as this argument is. Science observes nature and natural processes to find out how things work. It has nothing to do with miracles mentioned in scripture.It’s not a straw man. You are arguing that that if science says something different than scripture, then science wins. And science would say that the resurrection is impossible.
My point is that it is pointless to argue science if you conclude that Gen. 1 describes only miracles. Either God used miracles to create the universe, or He used natural processes. And if you demand that people believe in literal 24 hour days in Gen. 1, then you must come up with a plausible explanation of why we observe supernovas that are up to 10B light years distant. I've yet to see a plausible explanation.
Upvote
0