Bible IS SCIENCE, exposing misnamed 'science' today

Status
Not open for further replies.

Catfisher

Active Member
Apr 29, 2019
349
190
47
Waco
✟11,319.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
The Bible is not a book of natural science. I'll come back to that...

Science is a process.
1) You identify a phenomenon you want to learn about.
2) You form a hypothesis about some aspect of the phenomenon.
3) You devise an experiment to test the hypothesis.
4) If observation agrees with your hypothesis, you might be onto something. If observation doesn't agree with you, your hypothesis is wrong.

That has been a very effective method for adding to human knowledge.

The claims in the Bible relating to creation aren't testable. We cannot recreate this universe in a lab and observe the creation. We cannot "test" the Resurrection of Jesus by burying him repeatedly in a lab.

The Bible is a story of history and a story of morality and a story of how many can reconcile itself back to God through Jesus. And that makes sense.

History isn't going to change.
Objective moral laws don't change.
Science changes. Constantly. So, to treat the Bible as a science book is simply unrealistic.

God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, not Neils Bohr's essays on atomic structure.

And Kent Hovind's arguments are unfortunate, but can we not lump ALL Creationists into his brand of silliness, please?
 
Upvote 0

Tone

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."
Supporter
Dec 24, 2018
15,128
6,906
California
✟61,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
"energy (n.)
1590s, "force of expression," from Middle French énergie (16c.), from Late Latin energia, from Greek energeia "activity, action, operation," from energos "active, working," from en "at" (see en- (2)) + ergon "work, that which is wrought; business; action," from PIE root *werg- "to do."

Used by Aristotle with a sense of "actuality, reality, existence" (opposed to "potential") but this was misunderstood in Late Latin and afterward as "force of expression," [emphasis mine] as the power which calls up realistic mental pictures. Broader meaning of "power" in English is first recorded 1660s. Scientific use is from 1807. Energy crisis first attested 1970."
energy | Origin and meaning of energy by Online Etymology Dictionary

Historical Development of the Word "Energy" | Energy Fundamentals

Strong's Hebrew: 8633. תֹּ֫קֶף (toqeph) -- power, strength, energy


"A word is more then it's definition because it contains energy and power. Klingler explains that we actually feel words.

Think of the word inch and notice what happens to your energy. How do you feel as you think or say the word?

Now, try the same thing with the word mile. Did you feel a difference in your energy between those two words? (I definitely do.)

And now close your eyes and think of the words short and tall? Did your energy shrink with short and expand with tall? And what about those two words shrink and expand? It's crazy how we really can feel the difference in the energy of words.

Klingler explains that even though words don't seem to have an emotional value we can still feel a difference between them. And that's because words have energy."
The Power of Positive Words - Why the energy of words affect you!

"Words are energy and energy affects matter. The energy of your microwave vibrates the water molecules and heats the water. The energy of electricity flows to your washing machine and powers the motor that spins the tub and cleans your clothes.

So, we can rightfully say that energy affects matter. Your words are energy that affects the matter in your life. When you speak the words, "This is the worst car I have ever had! You stupid piece of junk!" Those words are vibrations of energy that affect the atoms that make up that car. If you speak those words long enough, your car will obey you!

Scientists have performed experiments with atoms and their subatomic particles such as electrons. If you paid attention in school, you saw the diagram of an atom with the electron orbiting it like the earth orbits the sun.

The interesting thing is that scientists have discovered that the electron that is shown orbiting the nucleus is not always there in particle form. It exists in a wave state (like a cloud, everywhere at once) until someone looks at it.

When the scientist observes it, it suddenly appears as a dot (particle). What we all want to know is, "How does it know someone is looking at it?" It obviously is responding to the observer.

One of the difficulties in quantum physics is that the particles behave somewhat differently for each observer, which leads me to the question, "Does it behave according to what the scientist believes?"

In any event, we can definitely conclude that Jesus was right when He taught that all matter responds to faith and words. The substance from which our world is made is influenced and manifested by words. The things that you desire are made up of atoms. They know what you believe, hear what you say and behave accordingly!"
Words Are Energy

"There are many studies and experiments done on plants in which the same plants were placed in three separate rooms. In one room kind words were spoken, in the second harsh words were spoken and in the third room, there was pin-drop silence. The results showed that the plants which were exposed to kind words grew a little more than the other two. What does it show?

It shows that words are important. They effect all living beings. If they can effect plants, imagine the impact they would have on humans."
The science behind power of words - Daily Times

"Source:
A study released on August 26, 2013 confirms that language has the power to reshape our knowledge and expectations of the world we see. Interestingly, another study released the same day found that one’s “dispositional attitude” is what makes some people love everything they see and others to hate everything. Put together, this new research offers clues on ways that someone can change his or her explanatory style to be happier and more optimistic.

As an athlete, I have always used self-talk to create a parallel universe where anything is possible and the world around me is cooperating to help me achieve a goal. Whether I’m running 135-miles through Death Valley in July, or 154-miles in 24 hours on a treadmill — my inner dialogue always stays positive, optimistic and upbeat. I consciously reframe reality to make adverse or 'disagreeable' physical conditions become agreeable."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...ntists-find-single-word-can-alter-perceptions

"Observer bias (also called experimenter bias or research bias) is the tendency to see what we expect to see, or what we want to see. When a researcher studies a certain group, they usually come to an experiment with prior knowledge and subjective feelings about the group being studied. In other words, they come to the table with conscious or unconscious prejudices."
Observer Bias / Research or Experimenter Bias: Definition, Examples, How to Avoid - Statistics How To
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tone

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."
Supporter
Dec 24, 2018
15,128
6,906
California
✟61,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
"It is natural to imagine that the sense of sight takes in the world as it is — simply passing on what the eyes collect from light reflected by the objects around us.

But the eyes do not work alone. What we see is a function not only of incoming visual information, but also how that information is interpreted in light of other visual experiences, and may even be influenced by language.

Words can play a powerful role in what we see, according to a study published this month by UW–Madison cognitive scientist and psychology professor Gary Lupyan, and Emily Ward, a Yale University graduate student, in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."
Language can reveal the invisible, study shows

*John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Words)

(Emphasis mine)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
I see, it's pretty basic math you must be pretty rusty. How about that scientist thing rusty on that too? What were you a scientist of?

Nuclear physics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

Firewatchduty

Active Member
Apr 29, 2019
55
64
41
85132
✟17,290.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why on earth would I trust someone whose first 'argument' is a fallacious ad hominem?
Cool story. As it turns out, I am one of those guys in a labcoat, and I am betting you are not? Try this on for size and show me the myth:

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have already posted this 2 or 3 times in thread alone for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can conclude that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "


Sounds great. A bit off, but who is counting? your point?


So, you are equating "80.192 genetic base pairs" so-called to "7 genetic differences"? Ok... I wrote as I smirked and chuckled to myself...


Let me help you out a bit, Champ -

1. A mutation is not the same thing as a different gene.
2. The human genome is made up of about 3 billion base pairs.
3. Those 240 mutations you mention account for a whopping 0.000008% of the genome.
4. There are only about 25000 genes in the genome
5. Most mutations do not even occur in genes or regulatory sequence

You are trying to formulate an anti-evolution argument premised on an article you read about dog breeds being accounted for by 7 genes, and me having 240 mutations my grandparents didn't have.

Have you heard the phrase "apples and oranges"? Your argument he is like "apples and fish."

Oh GENETIC base pairs, why didn't you say so?

Another hint - a typical gene is made up of around 1500 coding base pairs. Even within coding sequence, mutations do not necessarily cause a change at all.

Apples and fish.


Never claimed to, but as one that has actually studied and received degrees in relevant science field,s I think I am up to snuff on this stuff - which is why I was able to tell your argument was, well, worthless.

Same to you.

How ironic...
I appreciate you addressing what I said even if it was a bit condescending. So you've proven adaptation we knew that form breeding dogs. Now show me where fish grow legs and lungs. You kind of nitpicked my argument here. My point is the RATE of evolution, yes between you and ol' grandad there are 240 mutations. Over time which is the fix all for this theory there would be changes. So 13 million years ago a human baby came from a chimp? Humans in our current form are 200,000 years old which would be 8000 generations which times 80.129 would be 641032 genetic base pair differences I guess evolution took a vacation?
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Eddie Bravo haha awesome. Hey since your a Isaac Asimov fan
Asimov son in PC inappropriate content case | ZDNet
Searching the interwebz for inappropriate content is your thing?
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Nope just stating the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Careful who your heroes are.
I'm not twelve, I don't have heroes.

But since we're handing out unsolicited advice, same to you. ;)

images
 
Upvote 0

Tone

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."
Supporter
Dec 24, 2018
15,128
6,906
California
✟61,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Words are indeed powerful...

*Dâbhâr - Hebrew Thoughts- Language Studies - StudyLight.org

**"verb, דבר dâbhar (Strong's #1696), occurs over 1100 times and required 45 different English words). It can also be translated by 'power', 'purpose', 'book', 'provision', 'reason', 'work', 'matter', 'thing', 'cause' or 'commandment' (e.g., the 10 commandments or 10 words, Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13; 10:4)..."
(Emphasis mine)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tone

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."
Supporter
Dec 24, 2018
15,128
6,906
California
✟61,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
"The Word was not just spoken it contained the power to fulfil or at the very least the intent to keep one's word. When the prophet heard a Word from the Lord it contained the driving force to impel its delivery. Jeremiah (20:9) could not restrain the Word any longer, but had to let it out. Just as the New Testament describes it the Word is alive and active, creative and explosive. It also was life to its hearers (Deuteronomy 32:46-47 and Jesus' words in John 6:63,68).

In the Old Testament the Word is almost personified, as is Wisdom, this is finally revealed in the New Testament as a description of Jesus, the Word incarnate."
Dâbhâr - Hebrew Thoughts- Language Studies - StudyLight.org

"E = mc2, equation in German-born physicist Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity that expresses the fact that mass and energy are the same physical entity and can be changed into each other. In the equation, the increased relativistic mass (m) of a body times the speed of light squared (c2) is equal to the kinetic energy (E) of that body."
E = mc^2 | Equation, Explanation, & Proof
 
  • Like
Reactions: Firewatchduty
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Who are you even talking too??


"The Word was not just spoken it contained the power to fulfil or at the very least the intent to keep one's word. When the prophet heard a Word from the Lord it contained the driving force to impel its delivery. Jeremiah (20:9) could not restrain the Word any longer, but had to let it out. Just as the New Testament describes it the Word is alive and active, creative and explosive. It also was life to its hearers (Deuteronomy 32:46-47 and Jesus' words in John 6:63,68).

In the Old Testament the Word is almost personified, as is Wisdom, this is finally revealed in the New Testament as a description of Jesus, the Word incarnate."
Dâbhâr - Hebrew Thoughts- Language Studies - StudyLight.org

"E = mc2, equation in German-born physicist Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity that expresses the fact that mass and energy are the same physical entity and can be changed into each other. In the equation, the increased relativistic mass (m) of a body times the speed of light squared (c2) is equal to the kinetic energy (E) of that body."
E = mc^2 | Equation, Explanation, & Proof
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The Bible is not a book of natural science. ...
The bible is not JUST a book of natural science. It is also a book of actual real science! Man's modern so called science therefore is hopelessly blindsided.
Science is a process.
1) You identify a phenomenon you want to learn about.
Cannot be done for the future or origin issues if they involve more than the current natural!
2) You form a hypothesis about some aspect of the phenomenon.
It would be comically useless since formed with a small fraction of the info!
3) You devise an experiment to test the hypothesis.
4) If observation agrees with your hypothesis, you might be onto something. If observation doesn't agree with you, your hypothesis is wrong.
Same as above.
That has been a very effective method for adding to human knowledge.
So has car mechanics, horticulture, and medical science. None of these things cover origins or the future though, nor can they.
The claims in the Bible relating to creation aren't testable.
Not by hapless so called science that has no way to test and no clue what to test!
We cannot recreate this universe in a lab and observe the creation. We cannot "test" the Resurrection of Jesus by burying him repeatedly in a lab.
Wrong. It was witnessed by hundreds, and tested by billions. I test it all the time. Jesus is alive!
The Bible is a story of history and a story of morality and a story of how many can reconcile itself back to God through Jesus. And that makes sense.
False. It is a book from the hand of the Almighty Creator to man that contains true history and stories all of which point to Jesus. Because it tells us what is bad and good also, we could say it also has morality.
History isn't going to change.
It confirms Scripture as true.

Objective moral laws don't change.

Jesus was not about moral laws. He is about love and forgiveness and helping us be better. No moral law ever saved anyone. Jesus saves.

Science changes. Constantly.
So do menus and river currents and seasons. Jesus never changes. False origin fables must change when exposed, thus science is ever changing, and ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

So, to treat the Bible as a science book is simply unrealistic.
So, to treat the so called science as real science is simply unrealistic.
God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, not Neils Bohr's essays on atomic structure.
Bohr coul not get a bush to burn without being consumed. He was mickey mouse in comparison to the One that parted the red sea, controlled nature and animals to obey in the plagues of Egypt, and who fed millions for 40 years in a dessert! Learning about the current structure of atoms in this nature is also pretty lame when we consider eternity and creation and how atoms might exist/behave then! Bohr was a piker.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Tone
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Catfisher

Active Member
Apr 29, 2019
349
190
47
Waco
✟11,319.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
The bible is not JUST a book of natural science. It is also a book of actual real science! Man's modern so called science therefore is hopelessly blindsided.
Cannot be done for the future or origin issues if they involve more than the current natural!
It would be comically useless since formed with a small fraction of the info!
Same as above.

So, that tells me that Genesis 1, for example, isn't a scientific treatise. It's a bit history, a bit poetry, a bit moral lesson, etc. In fact, if you look at the structure of Genesis 1, you'll note it was written in a parallel verse style.

Numbers in the Old Testament also aren't to be taken literally. The numbers had more significance to Old Testament writers than just quantifying objects. The number 7 was holy and represented completeness. The number 40 appears many times in the old and new testament and just represents a long and trying duration in many instances.

So has car mechanics, horticulture, and medical science. None of these things cover origins or the future though, nor can they.

That's a bit beside the point. If the claim is that the Bible is the only True Science® book, then its claims must be testable. Otherwise it isn't science. It's another kind of knowledge. Maybe my Bible is incomplete, but it doesn't have the error codes for my Ford truck or how to replace the main seal :)

Not by hapless so called science that has no way to test and no clue what to test!

I disagree that science hasn't discovered a reasonable approach to dating the age of the universe. However, Young Earth Creationists are free to continue to try to prove a different dating!

Wrong. It was witnessed by hundreds, and tested by billions. I test it all the time. Jesus is alive!

Jesus' resurrection, which I affirm literally did occur, is wholly separate from how we interpret Genesis 1. Even Adam and Eve weren't around to witness Creation, whether you take the YEC view or the Old Universe view.

False. It is a book from the hand of the Almighty Creator to man that contains true history and stories all of which point to Jesus. Because it tells us what is bad and good also, we could say it also has morality.

There's some wiggle room there. God does not have hands, as He is incorporeal. Nor did God sit and dictate the Bible to the writers. I'm not saying the Bible is false in any respect, but rather there are more than one way to interpret the 66 different books and their authors.


Jesus was not about moral laws. He is about love and forgiveness and helping us be better. No moral law ever saved anyone. Jesus saves.

I don't disagree with this. However, the Old Testament is a long tale of a people who repeatedly slid away into immorality and the consequences of those slides. That is valuable insight, especially as evidence for objective morality, and thus God's existence. I am not claiming that it's possible to achieve salvation through works or obedience alone.

So do menus and river currents and seasons. Jesus never changes. False origin fables must change when exposed, thus science is ever changing, and ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Physics, for instance, gets pretty close. Relativity, for example, is used to program GPS satellites, since the speed and gravitational fields in which a GPS satellite lives require the clocks to be adjusted in order to be accurate. The fact that GPS works is evidence that Relativity is a very good approximate theory. From relativity, the age of the universe can be more accurately dated.


So, to treat the so called science as real science is simply unrealistic.
Bohr coul not get a bush to burn without being consumed. He was mickey mouse in comparison to the One that parted the red sea, controlled nature and animals to obey in the plagues of Egypt, and who fed millions for 40 years in a dessert! Learning about the current structure of atoms in this nature is also pretty lame when we consider eternity and creation and how atoms might exist/behave then! Bohr was a piker.

Let's use Heisenberg here as a fine example. When he and others were exploring quantum mechanics he commented that quantum mechanics was reminiscent of Aristotle's concept of act and potency. Act and potency are concepts that are integral into Thomistic philosophy and some of the best arguments for God's existence, as laid out by St. Thomas Aquinas.

I hate to be long winded or overly disagreeable. I really appreciate the exchange. I just think that Young Earth Creationism is a really big mistake that only came about in the 1800s, and that has misled a good number of people. I don't think that the Bible and science need be seen as mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Catfisher

Active Member
Apr 29, 2019
349
190
47
Waco
✟11,319.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
I'm not twelve, I don't have heroes.
But since we're handing out unsolicited advice, same to you. ;)

Oh, come on. Your screen name is in honor of Christopher Hitchens, lol. Don't tell me you don't have heroes. Perhaps you secretly want to be Richard Dawkins. That's a happening dude!!

I'd never want to be Jerry Coyne or Daniel Dennett, though. Not my type.
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Oh, come on. Your screen name is in honor of Christopher Hitchens, lol. Don't tell me you don't have heroes. Perhaps you secretly want to be Richard Dawkins. That's a happening dude!!

I'd never want to be Jerry Coyne or Daniel Dennett, though. Not my type.
I've read most of Hitchens, Dawkins, Coyne, Shermer, some Harris, most all of C.S. Lewis, some Asimov... doesn't mean they're heroes by any stretch. But if you need a strawman, I'm your huckleberry. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catfisher
Upvote 0

Catfisher

Active Member
Apr 29, 2019
349
190
47
Waco
✟11,319.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
I've read most of Hitchens, Dawkins, Coyne, Shermer, some Harris, most all of C.S. Lewis, some Asimov... doesn't mean they're heroes by any stretch. But if you need a strawman, I'm your huckleberry. ;)

Just pulling your chain. I actually really appreciated Hitchen's wit. He was a treasure. Of course, I wish he had used it to argue for Christianity instead of against it. But he was great. I agreed with him on a great many things. Religion just wasn't one of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HitchSlap
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tone

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."
Supporter
Dec 24, 2018
15,128
6,906
California
✟61,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
What is that supposed to mean?

Your idea of scientific evidence...is faith.

*Except, what "science" can only hold in idea...faith has grasped through thought, words, and action...to become substance.

**The reason why that type of science cannot encompass all things, is because it has failed to include the Bible in its scope, and is thus fragmented.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.