Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[joshua 1 9]

The "Science method" does not support a worldwide flood.

Noah's flood was a shadow and a type of the flood that took place 200 million years ago when Pangea was destroyed. Science helps us to better understand what we read about Noah in our Bible. The Bible is absolute truth and science can verify that. Just like the Bible helps us to verify what is true Science and what is not true Science.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are openly admitting that you lied? Or perhaps you do not know what a poe is.

Weez aw idjits an lars, aint we?

 

[HitchSlap]

Noah's flood was a shadow and a type of the flood that took place 200 million years ago when Pangea was destroyed. Science helps us to better understand what we read about Noah in our Bible. The Bible is absolute truth and science can verify that. Just like the Bible helps us to verify what is true Science and what is not true Science.

How has science verified that Noah lived 200 million years ago?

 

[AV1611VET]

How has science verified that Noah lived 200 million years ago?

Science can't verify Noah lived 4000 years ago ... let alone 200 million.

Science can't verify the year that Christ was born.

Science is myopic.

 

[HitchSlap]

Science can't verify Noah lived 4000 years ago ... let alone 200 million.

Science can't verify the year that Christ was born.

Science is myopic.

So much for your "Science method" supporting bible stories, then.

 

[AV1611VET]

So much for your "Science method" supporting bible stories, then.

I don't rely on science to support the Bible.

And I'll quote my pastor:

"Some say they found Pharaoh's chariot at the bottom of the Red Sea. If you get excited about this [leans forwards and shouts:] SHAME ON YOU! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU!? ISN'T THE FACT THAT GOD SAID IT GOOD ENOUGH! DO YOU HAVE TO RELY ON SCIENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR FAITH!!!?"

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't rely on science to support the Bible.

And I'll quote my pastor:

"Some say they found Pharaoh's chariot at the bottom of the Red Sea. If you get excited about this [leans forwards and shouts:] SHAME ON YOU! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU!? ISN'T THE FACT THAT GOD SAID IT GOOD ENOUGH! DO YOU HAVE TO RELY ON SCIENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR FAITH!!!?"

Is this your pastor?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Weez aw idjits an lars, aint we?

It appears that you are accusing yourself of being one. Not my claim, you said that you poe'd another member here. Now I would not accuse you of being dishonest. I was rather amazed when you owned up to it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science can't verify Noah lived 4000 years ago ... let alone 200 million.

Science can't verify the year that Christ was born.

Science is myopic.

Science does not try to verify the year that Christ was born. The author of Luke got caught making up a story. That is not "science's" problem, That is a problem for the Bible.

And science does cannot date how old a fictional person lived. Again, that part of the Bible was never meant to be read literally.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is this your pastor?

Okay ... this constitutes a major change in direction that I don't wish to go.

I don't need a sermon on that stuff to appreciate being told about science verifying Scripture.

Apples and oranges.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science does not try to verify the year that Christ was born.

When did they give up? when they gave up looking for evidence of a global flood?

2 Kings 2:17 And when they urged him till he was ashamed, he said, Send. They sent therefore fifty men; and they sought three days, but found him not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When did they give up? when they gave up looking for evidence of a global flood?

2 Kings 2:17 And when they urged him till he was ashamed, he said, Send. They sent therefore fifty men; and they sought three days, but found him not.

What do you mean "give up"? They found evidence to the contrary over 200 years ago. All of the evidence found since then only confirms those earlier findings.

Please note all of the problems that have been presented here that flood supporters have to dodge or run away from.

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you mean "give up"? They found evidence to the contrary over 200 years ago.

This is one of the first things I experienced when I joined here.

People were saying there was no evidence of a global flood; until I started asking them when was the last time they looked.

Then they changed their tune from THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE FLOOD to EVIDENCE SAYS THERE WAS NO FLOOD.

 

[HitchSlap]

This is one of the first things I experienced when I joined here.

People were saying there was no evidence of a global flood; until I started asking them when was the last time they looked.

Then they changed their tune from THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE FLOOD to EVIDENCE SAYS THERE WAS NO FLOOD.

I'd like to believe you, but I can't.

 

[dad]

You don't seem to understand. The burden of proof is upon those that claim that there was a "creator" and a "creation" in the first place. Not jumping to conclusions without any valid support is not "omitting".



When have they ever declared that "there is no God"?

They simply cannot assume such claims either way without evidence.

Once again you are merely projecting your beliefs.

One cannot ignore the creation and creator without evidence.

 

[dad]

It really doesn't matter what I say about the bible, it's either true, or it isn't. The question is, what does reality suggest.

The real question is whether so called science and it's blind adherents of the faith are acquainted with realty, or some demonic alternate delusional state?

 

[HitchSlap]

The real question is whether so called science and it's blind adherents of the faith are acquainted with realty, or some demonic alternate delusional state?

I don't even know what this means. Sorry boss.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One cannot ignore the creation and creator without evidence.

Wrong, if anyone wants to claim that anything exists the burden of proof is upon the one making a positive claim. In proper science one does not make a positive claim without evidence. Also one does not pay attention to a claim that has no evidence.

Where is the evidence for your "creator"?

 

[dad]

I don't even know what this means. Sorry boss.

Don't claim you are acquainted with reality as some defense for the faith based plethora of fables from the dark vaults of so called science.

 

[dad]

Wrong, if anyone wants to claim that anything exists the burden of proof is upon the one making a positive claim.

Do you claim the past was the same laws and nature on earth? We wait. (hint, science does)