Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[AV1611VET]

That might point to why so many of our youth have abandoned Christianity, especially as the old Biblical Creation story is replaced by a new Science opened Creation Story.

So many of our youth went gaga over Garbage Pail Kids.

So why wouldn't they go gaga over science, which throws up ylem all over the place?

 

[AV1611VET]

The idea that the Bible is inerrant and even the belief that the Bible is the Word of God is questioned resulting in the questioning of the beliefs of the Christian religion.

What else is old?

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

 

[Hammster]

A lot of these fools turned out to be Nobel Prize winners.

I’m sure they did.

Here is list of contemporary scientists who identify themselves as being Christian.

List of Christians in science and technology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Okay.

As I have mentioned on numerous occasions God is an unfalsifiable concept in science; neither Christians nor atheists can use science to support their faith or the lack of it.

Okay. I’m not sure what that has to do with my arguments, though.

 

[dlamberth]

Science has created a way to try to explain away God. Professing to be wise, they became fools.

Not so. Science opens a window into how God creates. Science isn't about wisdom, it's about knowledge. Two different things.

 

[dlamberth]

So many of our youth went gaga over Garbage Pail Kids.

So why wouldn't they go gaga over science, which throws up ylem all over the place?

Maybe because they can see the light of the Creation process through science?

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe because they can see the light of the Creation process through science?

Creation wasn't a "process."

It was a series of miracles.

 

[Hammster]

Not so. Science opens a window into how God creates. Science isn't about wisdom, it's about knowledge. Two different things.

True science does that. It starts with God and what is revealed in His word.

 

[Frank Robert]

It seems you are illinformed and confused on.
1/ the philosophical context of scientific theory.

Nice try. Reframing belief in scientific theory to philosophical context of theory doesn't cut it. Would you jettison your Christian belief if someone supplied superior evidence of the Hindu gods?

2/ the forensic evidence underlying Eucharistic not shamanic miracles.
Studying is good before you make such a false comparison.
show me forensic evidence of CREATED life in a shamanic context , I will look at it.
creation was the context.

Reframing doesn't cut it. My claim dealt miraculous cures not created life.

3/you are also apparently illinformed on the context of evolution and indeed the lack of any single theory of evolution. It is a mish mash Of thories, hypothesis and pure conjecture, together they do not explain life.

Nice word salad.

The forensic evidence of eucharistic miracles falsify Darwin’s theory by Darwins own test.

You are entitled to your belief.

4/ I accept both evolution and creation. I can breed dogs to get longer ears.
Even the greatest optimist has to accept that evolution is not nearly a complete explanation for life.

I wish there were scientisys on creation/ evolution threads , not just those professing belief in evolution as an origin of life. Which is your take- you are welcome to your belief on origin of life, but that is all it is.

If you serious about discussions with scientists and other experts you can do so on Peaceful Science. Hope to see you there.

As for “ agnostic” on shroud. no idea what you mean.
You are not using words correctly.
The shroud is evidence that many atheists believe that history can be faked

See synonyms for agnostic

 

[dlamberth]

Creation wasn't a "process."

It was a series of miracles.

It's a process, a very long process. The Earth and in fact all of the Cosmos shows that truth. Hubble and James Web telescopes have opened the Cosmos to new knowledge towards that end.

 

[sjastro]

Okay. I’m not sure what that has to do with my arguments, though.

This is what you wrote "Science has created a way to try to explain away God. Professing to be wise, they became fools."
Science doesn't care about the existence or non existence of God.

Here is a video where Freeman Dyson, physicist mathematical genius and devout Christian discusses the topic "Can science deal with God".
Dyson never won the Nobel prize in Physics which is a mystery to this day.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Here is a video where Freeman Dyson, physicist mathematical genius and devout Christian discusses the topic "Can science deal with God".
Dyson never won the Nobel prize in Physics which is a mystery to this day.

Must be that infamous anti-Christian bias of the Nobel Committee.

 

[kiwimac]

The source from which you derive your information about Jesus Christ has Him claiming that the OT scripture is infallible (John 10:35, Mark 7:8) and in 2 Peter 3:1-2, Peter claims that the same commandments of The Lord were given through the Apostles. Paul explicitly states in 1 Corinthians 14:37-38 that what He is writing is The Lord's commandment and also in 1 Thessalonians 2:13 Paul calls his words the word of God. The Scripture holds itself out as infallible. Truth never changes, it is. Therefore the time in which it was produced is irrelevant, for the truth exists independent of belief or time and will continue to be truth regardless of these factors. Else it's not truth, only belief.

As a leader in the Church I would sincerely ask that you reconsider your belief about Scripture. Not just for your sake but for the sake of the Saints under your charge and care.

God bless .

God alone is infallible, no created object shares that with God especially not a created object passed through the minds of humans.

 

[kiwimac]

I am holding it up to what it claims to be. If it isn’t inerrant, then it is completely useless.

Twaddle, My theology lecturer used a much more earthy phrase to describe that argument in the 70s.

 

[kiwimac]

Was Paul incorrect in that system?

Paul was Paul.

 

[kiwimac]

True science does that. It starts with God and what is revealed in His word.

I see that you quote Rushdoony. Are you a dominionist?

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

God alone is infallible, no created object shares that with God especially not a created object passed through the minds of humans.

On what basis do you claim God is infallible if you came to the conclusion through your mind then?

Scripture, thank God, is independent of our minds and is a complete product. God's words spoken through the Apostles are not created, they are Him and His will.

 

[Astrid]

Paul was Paul.

...was Saul.

The snake story btw is really a fish story

 

[Astrid]

On what basis do you claim God is infallible if you came to the conclusion through your mind then?

Scripture, thank God, is independent of our minds and is a complete product. God's words spoken through the Apostles are not created, they are Him and His will.

Words on paper still have to be decoded
by fallible minds.
Look at all the earnest people whe read
Genesis and conclude there really was a
world wide flood.

I'm still puzzled how anyone can say they
know Truth, unless they are infallible, or,
at least, think they are.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a process, a very long process. The Earth and in fact all of the Cosmos shows that truth. Hubble and James Web telescopes have opened the Cosmos to new knowledge towards that end.

What would Hubble say about Jesus turning water into wine?

Hubble: It didn't happen. After all, it takes a long time to make wine.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here is a video where Freeman Dyson, physicist mathematical genius and devout Christian discusses the topic "Can science deal with God".

Scientists, who argue for the existence of God and creation, present God as having His hands tied behind His back.