Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[joshua 1 9]

The problem is that you are the ignorant student. I have not even tried to teach you. So as of now you get an F. If you want me to help you to learn then you can grade me. Otherwise I will merely point out your errors. If you want me to help you to learn then you can grade me after the attempt.

Ok so you admit that you get an F in history. I understand nothing ventured nothing gained.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you want to consider Noah an archetype go ahead. There is no conflict between the Bible and Science. They go hand in hand and you can not understand one with out the other. If it were not for Abraham and Moses you would not even have any science today. Do you understand the significance of recorded history? You keep wanting the throw the history book away. How is that any different then Isis over in Iraq trying to destroy the museums and the artifacts that are thousands of years old? Why does Isis want to destroy our historical heritage?

Isis is even more crazy than the fundamentalists here. Pointing to someone clearly crazier than you are does not really make you look sane. Also, we know that there never was a global flood. There never was a need for an ark. That can be easily demonstrated. So how is pointing out that the Noah's Ark story is just a story "throwing out the history book". The Bible is not a history book.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so you admit that you get an F in history. I understand nothing ventured nothing gained.

No, I am not the teacher yet. I do very well in history. You get an F because you can't tell the difference between fantasy and history. The concept of Noah's Ark was refuted over 200 years ago.

 

[dad]

Hardly. You know practically nothing of the sciences so me claiming that I know more than you ever possibly could is not that large of a claim.



What are you nattering about? When people will not accept science it does very little good to offer them any. Most creationists are creationists not, and let me emphasize this, not because they are idiots, but because they will not let themselves learn relatively simple science. It seems to be caused by their fear of reality. Creationists tend to have the a weak sort of faith that is "all or nothing". The problem is that their version of "all" is wrong.

And since the existence of Satan is even more dubious than the existence of a god that part of your post makes no sense. Also I have never opposed "God's word"



And I could make a comment that you are so full of it that that is all you have in your house.

dad, if you want to debate rationally I would be more than happy to. If you want to break the rules and attack me personally then this thread will be closed in no time.

No science, nothing interesting or worthwhile...congrats, for a usual post of yours.

 

[Kylie]

Comparing Moses to Spider Man is like comparing Darwin to Magilla Gorilla.

No it's not.

We have Darwin's own writings, accounts of him by his contemporaries. We can trace his family line. Can't do that with Moses.

 

[Kylie]

I don't get to sway you. The evidence you seek is all around you.

No, it's not evidence for what you claim it is.

But if you only look as far as what your eyes see, then you will be fooled by the facade...which is intentional, to confound those who have no interest in seeing an unseen God.

And here we go with the explanations to justify the belief...

If that is you...then the [natural] seen world is it for you, life remains purely organic, and when the body dies so does the natural spirit.

If you can provide testable evidence of something more (including testable evidence of this "natural spirit", whatever that is), then please present it.

I, as millions of witnesses down through all of history, can only convey the information. As for believing and evidence...that is on you. All the best to you.

And there are many more witnesses who have experienced something that directly contradicts what you experienced. You can't all be right. But you can all be wrong.

 

[Kylie]

The line of logic runs down through all of recorded history.

It's not logic you're speaking of...

We do not try to justify it, but to share it and speak of it as the unseen facts that have been made known to us.

What good are "facts" if you make no effort to justify them? Facts must be tested constantly otherwise any idiot can say whatever he wants, claim it is fact, and you'd have no way of knowing any different.

The view over the horizon has not been seen by all, but we who have seen, have a voice that is as consistent as the times allow.

Then why are there so many different kinds of Christianity? Why are there so many different religions?

You have heard our witness. "We" have no need to provide evidence for what we "know", nor could we provide you with what must be seen, unless you yourself go.

So you can't prove it at all. Why should I believe something you are incapable of supporting?

I could just as easily say to you, "There is no God. I can't prove it, but if you gave up your faith and became an atheist, you'd realise that I am right. So why don't you try it?"

The natural-world example was discovering the "new" world. Some went, and some stayed and made foolish demands from the shore.

Yeah, but it's not the same, is it? When it comes to scientific discovery, those who go and find out what is beyond the horizon come back with actual evidence. They have the data they have collected, free for all to examine. And, most importantly, all of those who go and come back with data come back with the same data. If every single person who had a religious experience described exactly the same religion, then I'd be inclined to believe that they were telling the truth. But there are so many inconsistencies between different religions that I can't for a second believe they are describing some universal truth.

The invitation is to stay, or to go. If you stay, it is our witness that life is simply organic and ends at natural death. It is also our witness that if you choose to go, then life does not end at natural death. You have nothing to loose. But not having seen, the door [of invitation] is open, and the choice is yours.

Nothing to lose? Please, don't tell me you are trying Pascal's Wager on me! That nonsense has been debunked so many times I'm amazed that anyone still even thinks it is a good idea!

I apologize if that all sounds arrogant to you, but it is no more arrogant than us going to see a movie and you deciding not to go. We wouldn't need to prove anything to you, nor could we. You either go, or you don't. The only other thing we could do is buy your ticket for you...and we have.

Once again, your analogy fails. A more accurate analogy would be you claiming that the movie is an exact description of the world. And different studios put out different movies, all claiming to be exact descriptions of the world and all saying different things.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is a myth that anyone ever believed in a flat earth.

I don't think that's going to matter here, Joshua.

They have found what they think is flat earth cosmology in the Bible.

So whether it was taught in the past or not makes no difference.

They're willing to suspend any science to the contrary, and even figures of speech, to claim the Bible teaches it.

 

[AV1611VET]

We have Darwin's own writings,

Has his handwriting been authenticated by experts?

... accounts of him by his contemporaries.

How do you know they weren't inserted after-the-fact?

We can trace his family line.

I dunno.

I bet the names of his mother's line is different from the names of his father's line.

Looks like Darwin wasn't the man we've thought he was after all, doesn't it?

Can't do that with Moses.

Science is myopic.

 

[HitchSlap]

Has his handwriting been authenticated by experts?How do you know they weren't inserted after-the-fact?I dunno.

I bet the names of his mother's line is different from the names of his father's line.

Looks like Darwin wasn't the man we've thought he was after all, doesn't it?
Science is myopic.

It really burns you that Darwin was a literal person, and Jesus wasn't.
On the one hand, we have living relatives, copious amounts of hand written manuscripts, published books, photographs, family property, and numerous fossils, and on the other hand, ... nothing.
Sorry Chief, reality wins.

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't think that's going to matter here, Joshua.

They have found what they think is flat earth cosmology in the Bible.

So whether it was taught in the past or not makes no difference.

They're willing to suspend any science to the contrary, and even figures of speech, to claim the Bible teaches it.

Well, the bible certainly wasn't used by Christians to teach the earth was a sphere. Go figure.

 

[AV1611VET]

It really burns you that Darwin was a literal person, and Jesus wasn't.

Your faith is showing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, the bible certainly wasn't used by Christians to teach the earth was a sphere.

I won't argue that.

They using the Bible as a science book was like they using Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No science, nothing interesting or worthwhile...congrats, for a usual post of yours.

The lack of science is your fault and not mine. When you are ready to learn I am ready to teach. You should not blame others for your own faults.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your faith is showing.

No, we really know that Darwin was a real person. We have real eyewitness accounts. You don't. We have writings by the man, you don't. We have photographs of the man, you don't.

 

[Davian]

...
Science is myopic.

Why do you claim that science is myopic, when what you are really claiming is that science is wrong?

 

[HitchSlap]

Your faith is showing.

I don't have faith. That's a vice unique to theists.

 

[dad]

The lack of science ...

Yes...we know. Empty blab.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes...we know. Empty blab.

Thanks for admitting once again that you have nothing. We all have known that for years. But the offer to educate still stands.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes...we know. Empty blab.

Well, there's no one to blame but yourself.