Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
California Tim said:Here are a couple of conclusions supported by the same evidence:
Naturally, as you correctly pointed out, these are all speculations unproven by the known evidence. Yet all fit the evidence and that is my point.
- The car travelled at an initial speed of 230 mph, then at the 3/4 mile mark, stopped (to refuel for example), waited for 30 minutes in line and then finished the journey at a leisurely 35 mph.
- The car travelled 35 mph to the 1/2 mile mark, sped up to 100mph for another 1/4 mile and finished at 60 mph
California Tim said:
- The car travelled at an initial speed of 230 mph, then at the 3/4 mile mark, stopped (to refuel for example), waited for 30 minutes in line and then finished the journey at a leisurely 35 mph.
A spectacularly circular premise. All science that agrees with your intepretation of the Bible is "true science," the rest is not. And you know how to determine "true science" because the Bible is true.JohnR7 said:Really, there is no conflict between true science and the Bible.
Actually both scenarios are based on available evidence and are conclusions one could hypothesize based on personal interpretation. I have no idea how you could possibly dispute that.caravelair said:there is a difference between something that merely fits with the evidence, and something that is concluded as a result of the evidence. the 2 scenarios you listed are not based on the available evidence. therefore, they are not conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence.
JohnR7 said:You do not understand what Bible faith is. We do not have faith untell God tells us something. Then our faith is that we believe that He is going to do, what He says He is going to do. When my wife tells me something, then I have faith to believe that she is telling me the truth and that she is going to do what she told me that she was going to do. In other words, we have a covenant with God, just like a contract. If we keep out part of the agreement, then by faith we know that He is going to keep His part of the covenant or agreement.
For one, young-earth geology has been falsified. Any other evidence that fits a young-earth hypothesis is irrelevant.California Tim said:Actually both scenarios are based on available evidence and are conclusions one could hypothesize based on personal interpretation. I have no idea how you could possibly dispute that.
California Tim said:Actually both scenarios are based on available evidence and are conclusions one could hypothesize based on personal interpretation. I have no idea how you could possibly dispute that.
The car travelled at an initial speed of 230 mph, then at the 3/4 mile mark, stopped (to refuel for example), waited for 30 minutes in line and then finished the journey at a leisurely 35 mph.
Surely you are speaking metaphorically here unless you are referring to the Biblical passage which states that "the rocks will cry out!"Event Horizon said:The evidence speaks for itself.
Are you saying having faith in the Bible is different than normal faith? What about Koran faith?JohnR7 said:You do not understand what Bible faith is.
That's not a very accurite analogy for the following reasons:We do not have faith untell God tells us something. Then our faith is that we believe that He is going to do, what He says He is going to do. When my wife tells me something, then I have faith to believe that she is telling me the truth and that she is going to do what she told me that she was going to do.
Could you please describe what each side of the agreement is?In other words, we have a covenant with God, just like a contract. If we keep out part of the agreement, then by faith we know that He is going to keep His part of the covenant or agreement.
You lost me.john crawford said:Surely you are speaking metaphorically here unless you are referring to the Biblical passage which states that "the rocks will cry out!"
Thanks for the good opportunity for all of us to develop a better understanding of some of the differences between Biblical and non-Biblical perspectives.h2whoa said:So please, Creationists, I have one request to make. Please just use this thread to admit that no amount of evidence will ever sway you away from a literal reading of Genesis.
You see, at least then I can hear that your position is routed in faith and not in what I perceive to be ignorance.
h2
Logical enough, leading us to the question, why should we consider the Bible to be a reliable source of info and knowledge? (At least, reliable in scientific matters; in terms of history, mythology, and theology, it has its moments)john crawford said:Thanks for the good opportunity for all of us to develop a better understanding of some of the differences between Biblical and non-Biblical perspectives.
It must be logically admitted at the outset that if there was no Bible then everyone would have to base their beliefs on some other form of knowlege or information. So when the Bible is disregarded or rejected as a reliable source of info and knowledge then one has to resort to other fundamental premises on which to construct a worldview, such as may be found in other religions or in ancient Greek and other humanistic premises and philosophies.
Ah, but why is the Bible solid evidence for God's existence? Because it says so?So it may logically follow that when any so-called "evidence" for evolutionary beliefs is presented to a Biblical literalist (who btw, may regard the Bible as solid evidence of God's existence,)
Whoa.... slow down there. Not all Christians are literalists. Don't generalize.the relative "ignorant" viewpoint and perspective of the non-Christian must be taken into account because they do not use the same standards of time and history or human nature which the
Christian is wont to do.
Because the "scientific facts" support evolution, and not one of them support Biblical literalism, at least in matters of origins.At the same time though, most evos (theo or nontheo) seem incredulous at what they only percieve to be obstinacy on the part of many Christians in their constant attempts to refute or debunk evolutionism and claim that Christians are "ignorant" of evo science when the fact of the matter may be that many Christians simply choose not to believe in evo, despite the loud howls than one need not "believe" in evo in order to recognize and admit to the "scientific facts."
But what does faith in God have to do with Biblical Literalism? One can, often does, and (some would argue) must exist without the other.So faith (in God or nogod, the Bible or nobible) is definitely a factor when it comes to seeking an understanding of the different perspectives on what exactly constitutes 'evidence' or "facts," as I believe h2 is sincerely trying to do here. And may God bless him for the attempt.
And how exactly do you plan to "attack" all that nasty evidence?Meanwhile, I can't wait to scurry off onto another thread in order to pick up the pace of attacks on all that evidentiary bunk the evos are still trying to cram down our God-given ignorant throats. Gaaahg!
And the reason you were able to do that was because...California Tim said:I think you take liberty with the assumtion that the "evidence" contradicts what the Bible says took place. I am a (YEC) creationist. I read all the reported "evidence" and I interpret the evidence from the perspective that the Bible teaches - and find a palpable harmony between what science discovers with that of the Bible.
Of this.The unbeliever must assume otherwise and thus interpets the data with a dramatically different bias. It's as simple as that.
And wrong again.The attacks you refer to are not likely to be abated by any statement short of a denial of an omnipotent God to whom we all must be accountable. That is the agenda.
Science is not a perspecive. Science is proven and is based on fact.kedaman said:I think its terribly wrong to base your faith on evidence. It is true that faith must begin with evidence, but it should not be grounded in evidence. In fact Faith is evidence of its own. So when you compare Genesis and Science, I think theres a few things to keep in mind. Science teaches you cosmos exists on its own, this already inconsistent with your beliefs. Instead Science should be seen as a perspective on things, not as how they really are, but as how they appear to you. Literal time is among the notion of how things appear to you, so the danger here is trying to interpret the bible scientifically.
I believe in creation, and I do not think any scientific evidence can be inconsistent with genesis.
Excuse me, but it's a lot harder to painstakingly put together a theory from years of scientific research than it is to use some verses from the Bible to tell you what the evidence might mean.JohnR7 said:Why would the evidence ever sway us? The Bible is the absolute truth. If we receive evidence in the way of new and additional information, then that is just going to help us to understand our Bible all that much more.
Also, the Bible is going to help us to understand the evidence. I feel sorry for people who try to understand "evidence" without using the Bible to guide them in that. I know it is because they are lazy and looking for a quick and easy way out from having to struggle to understand what the evidence really means.
Are people willing to admit that no amount of evidence will ever sway them from rejecting a literal reading of Genesis?
This forum will get cleared out pretty quickly if you start doing that.aeroz19 said:I'm starting a movement now. Those that state things that you have stated, I will begin to put on ignore until only those who have intelligent and accurate things to say are left.
Who's with me?
Right, they're using the Bible to probe science, not science to prove the Bible.Randall McNally said:A spectacularly circular premise. All science that agrees with your intepretation of the Bible is "true science," the rest is not. And you know how to determine "true science" because the Bible is true.
Some folks cannot be educated because they do not want to be. Some folks have been here a long time and have put up a wall. What's the point? I will put those people on ignore.Nathan Poe said:Besides, that's precisely the type of people we need to educate.
If you could prove a theory, it wouldn't be science.aeroz19 said:Science is not a perspecive. Science is proven and is based on fact.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?