• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Bible says science cannot possibly know how many years since creation

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by dad, Feb 28, 2019.

  1. dad

    dad On the winning side Supporter

    +1,183
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    You don't know then. Physics is for the fishbowl. When you try to apply it to all of the created universe you engage in circular reasoning. You look at light in the fishbowl here from stars. You watch how it unfolds and exists in our space and time. You then try to declare that is the way it exists and is in the distant created universe. That is an exercise in ignorance. I would not have a problem with it if it is offered as such and not offered as some gospel that overrides the gospel of God.
     
  2. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +4,042
    Atheist
    We've had this discussion before. There's no point repeating it - I refer you to my previous answers.
     
  3. dad

    dad On the winning side Supporter

    +1,183
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    Not really, how would I know exactly what things man can't understand. The bible already mentioned time...the beginning from the end. It also mentioned God's ways. Science doesn't know what God does or when or how. What more do you want?

    No. I have zero need for science to be my big guru and go to and know it all. Really. I have absolutely no illusions that science does or should know anything important about origins, creation, God, history, etc.
    Wrong thread.
     
  4. dad

    dad On the winning side Supporter

    +1,183
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    I just referred to them in the post you replied to. You think that because atoms decay here and light behaves a certain way here etc etc etc...that this also has to hold true for where the light originated. Sorry, that is ridiculously religious. Refer to this post any time you want to bring up the issue, and apply it to your previous posts. Cheers.
     
  5. dad

    dad On the winning side Supporter

    +1,183
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    Right, that's what I mean. If what you say is true, and blue shifting should be seen in all quadrants of the universe, and it is not...that would be a lack of evidence. If they did claim it should exist, why would they not produce evidence?
     
  6. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,017
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    No, I am convinced by the scientists who know a heckofalot more about this than you or me. Do you really think that you have access to information that they don't?

    You do not speak as someone who understands the topic.

    Do you think the scientists who spend their lives studying this are doing so WITHOUT such evidence? Do you think their standards are lower than yours, that they will accept inferior evidence while you have access to The Truth (tm)?

    What are you going on about? You are the one claiming that the river analogy is accurate, not me.

    Do you not even pay attention to my posts? I have REPEATEDLY said that there is no absolute motion since there is no frame of reference with which we can measure any absolute motion.

    So you are saying that it's like a river, and the further you go downstream the faster the current moves? So that two boats that start out close together could end up farther apart?

    You do understand that an analogy is just a means of communicating an idea and does not need to be a 100% accurate description in every single detail?

    You seem to conveniently forget that an analogy is an ANALOGY, not a scientific model. I suspect you do this so you can discard any ideas which you do not like.

    I mean, your criticisms of my balloon analogy apply just as much to your river analogy, but you seem perfectly fine with that double standard.
     
  7. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,017
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    And I can say that science can't understand Schmeezles. That doesn't mean that Schmeezles are real.

    So you;ve decided that you'd rather put the blame on science when it can't explain something you can't even show is true?

    Nah, this is the right thread. If you want to say science is flawed because it can't explain something, then you must show that the thing you are talking about exists. Because science is a way to study reality. If something is real, then science is a good tool to study it. Science is only unable to study something if the thing it is trying to study is imaginary.
     
  8. dad

    dad On the winning side Supporter

    +1,183
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    Right and since Scripture and history do not mention your invented word either, that leaves no support. If you chose to limit reality to what poor little manscience knows about or can deal with, that is up to you. I could not swim in such a shallow puddle.

    Either God and His word are right and man can't know, or not.


    If you reject all records beyond last week as well as the sum experience of mankind with the supernatural, and want to live in a shoebox of natural present world science only, don't blame others or pretend nothing else exists.
    I agree. Just as a cardboard box with a pin hole in it to allow light in is a way to study light. However, when one cannot see beyond that box and clearly does not want to include as reality anything outside that box...it sets off alarm bells.
    Only what fit's in it's box and abilities and limits. That is so little of the whole picture that it is basically irrelevant.
     
  9. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,017
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    You really got stop just assuming that things are true just because you have decided they are true.

    I'm gonna say "not."

    So just because lots of people talk about it and write about it, it must be true?

    Of course, you must show that there is actually something outside the box.

    And the burden of showing that there is something outside the box falls on you.

    Discussions about this tend to go like this:

    Dad: There's something outside the box.

    Me: You must show evidence that there is something outside the box.

    Dad: The evidence is that you can't prove that there is nothing outside the box!

    Aside from the fact that you apparently lack the knowledge to understand the evidence I present (which is why I no longer bother trying to present it to you), it's simply ridiculous to claim that a lack of evidence for one thing is automatically evidence of it's opposite. Yet you continue to make that argument countless times.
     
  10. dad

    dad On the winning side Supporter

    +1,183
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    I would think that for most Christians or at least a great proportion, God and His word are the default. If you want to try and toss it out and override and overrule it, you need some heavy artillery intellectually, factually, and something with clear and strong and real evidence.


    Or false?


    That seems like a statement from one who never ventured outside the box. The only issue is whether one wants to venture out, or settle I guess.
    The way that something outside the box is seen is not by religiously staying inside the box and shutting all portals to reality outside that confine.

    Offering hit and run religious posts every year that you can't defend or apparently comprehend in depth is actually not presenting evidence.
    The evidence for Christ and Scripture has run through history like a bull in a china shop. Missing it takes a lot of effort!
     
  11. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +9,739
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    False. "Most Christians or at least a great proportion" Believe that the bible is the word of God, but not that Genesis must be 100% accurate literal history. There are something liike two billiion Christians worldwide, but only an hundred million or so are creationists.
     
  12. dad

    dad On the winning side Supporter

    +1,183
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    Whatever, you are welcome to your religion. It is sure not mine.
     
  13. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +9,739
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    So long as you keep in mind that your version of Christianity is not necessarily "better" or "truer" than anybody else's. Christians are generally united by the tenets of the Nicene Creed (and that's how they are defined in this forum, BTW). You can believe what you like about the Bible, but the rest of us don't have to.
     
  14. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,017
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Why? You think that just because it is the belief you hold to that it carries some kind of extra importance? Just to you, not to me. Doesn't matter what it is, you gotta have proof before you can convince me it's real.

    Yes, or false. That was entirely my point. Something that lots of people think is true can actually be false.

    That's why we look for evidence to support the claim.

    Nothing of any substance here...

    While I can't deny the fact that Christianity has had a huge effect of the world, that does not mean that Christian beliefs are correct.

    Please learn the difference.
     
  15. dad

    dad On the winning side Supporter

    +1,183
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    My beliefs carry importance to me.


    Like science.
    Ditto. Obviously Christians who believe have found evidences they needed. Those evidences are outside the box of science.


    Science has had effects also..WOMD, pollution, sex changes, lobotomies, and some good things also. In both cases the reason we have effects is because there is a cause.
     
  16. dad

    dad On the winning side Supporter

    +1,183
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    I don't expect those who take the bible as a book of wild tales from which some supposed good lessons can be gleaned, to value the beliefs of those who hold it in higher esteem as superior.
     
  17. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +9,739
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    Yes, not even if God himself wrote it.
     
  18. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,017
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Good for you.

    Just don't expect me to share your belief that they are important if you can't show me why.

    True. So how do we tell which positions are valid?

    Answer: We look for ways to TEST them. And if lots of people can put something to the test and they consistently get the same result, then maybe that has something going for it.

    On the other hand, if people put something to the test and they get different results, then maybe their idea is just bunk.

    Yes, obviously they did find something that was enough to convince them. But when it comes to evidence that can be double checked and verified, where are we then?

    Yet science and religion are very different things. They both say, "If you do X, you will get Y."

    Science says, "If you pass an electrical current through water, you will split it into hydrogen and oxygen." We can do it and test the result to see if the claims made by science are correct.

    Christianity says, "If you believe in God, you will go to Heaven." But there's no way to test this, is there. How do you conduct a census for Heaven? No, you can't check it at all. All you can do is look at other claims made by Christianity and go by what that says. All claims, no testable evidence.
     
  19. dad

    dad On the winning side Supporter

    +1,183
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    And don't expect me to show you anything when you have closed off anything outside the box.
    Absurdly false, since science cannot begin to test anything spiritual. That is like asking an ant to test for conditions on the space station from under an anthill.

    In prophesy we are in a great place, most bible prophesy is history now. When it comes to the ability of science to check, you are less than nowhere...and losing ground fast.

    What was the test for some first lifeform? There is a lot in the bible that does not just involve future and heaven.
     
  20. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,017
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    You've never been able to show me anything yet.

    Woah, calm down there.

    When did I say we had to use science to test it?

    Again, where did I say we could only use science to check? By all means, propose another method to check. As long as you can demonstrate to me that your alternate, non-science method produces accurate results, then I'll be happy to use it.

    You want a test for the first life form? Fine. Then define life.
     
Loading...