Just because you lay claim to all these great wonders does not in the least indicate you understand them. Science does not deny God. It is only believers who deny science.
Upvote
0
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.
Just because you lay claim to all these great wonders does not in the least indicate you understand them. Science does not deny God. It is only believers who deny science.The law of cause and effect states that for everything that happens there is a cause. The universe came into existence, therefore the universe had a cause. Science cannot identify that cause. Genesis does. Jesus, who was there to witness the events of Genesis, referenced them as factual. Why would a Christian deny the word of the Lord to embrace a scientific explanation which can't explain the origination of anything? Moreover, why would Christians look to the study of the natural world for answers to a supernatural origination?
There are 333 miracles in the Bible, all of which are scientifically impossible. Either science fails miserably in its claim of the supremacy of naturalism or the Bible is nothing but lies. In that case, why would one follow a liar who claimed to return from the dead? How does one decide which miracles to accept and which to reject? If one single miracle happened then science doesn't have all the answers. If no miracles happened than why waste time believing in a false God?
Other than the God you call "tiny" creating them? Lots... read the questions God puts to Job. You will see why Job was humbled. He began recognizing how big God was... which I think is your topic
Just because you talk about science it doesn't mean you understand it.Just because you lay claim to all these great wonders does not in the least indicate you understand them.
Science cannot study God, and can neither prove nor disprove the supernatural.Science does not deny God.
Ah, the most profoundly stupid argument on the internet returns.It is only believers who deny science.
Just because you talk about science it doesn't mean you understand it.
If you don't understand the boundaries of science then you don't understand the nature of science.
If you don't know what it can't measure then you don't know what it can.
If you don't understand that the laws of physics preclude origination then you have no way to appreciate the wonder of creation.
If you don't understand the omnipotence of God, then you don't understand God.
Science cannot study God, and can neither prove nor disprove the supernatural.
Ah, the most profoundly stupid argument on the internet returns.
Denying what you claim is not denying science, because you are not science. Evolution is not science. Red shift theory is not science. Denying geocentrism and alchemy were never denying science. Denying the fountain of youth is not denying science.
Science is a field of study. It produces theories by looking at an effect and trying to determine the cause. That determination is a theory, but denying it is not denying science. You can disagree with abiogenesis and still use a computer. You don't have to support evolution theory to turn on a light bulb.
There are NO valid scientific theories for the origination of matter. Therefore Genesis 1 is as scientific as any other text. The difference is in the presnce of an originating force VS the absence of an originating force.
Convenient, isn't it? Faced with a paradox that demonstrates the inability of naturalism to answer the question of origination you put an X in your thought process and proclaim "Here be dragons." Origination is impossible and yet here we are; perfectly functioning and able to generate independent thought. The "Big Bang" is held up as the great originator of the universe though the universe which arose from the it arrived in perfect order. There was no random broadcast of energy but rather the rapid expansion of a universe in more or less the same formation as we see now. I'll save you decades of calculations. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY this could happen. There is no possibility that random amino acids formed proteins in an oxygen free environment and somehow originated a life form capable of becoming everything from trees to poets. If one accepts that perhaps God exists in some form, then the logical question is "Who defines God? Man can't define God. Only God can define God. Yet though God reveals Himself through His Word many look at it and scoff, proclaiming that it isn't scientific.As for the origin of the universe, i think science stops at the Big Bang.
Yes, we call them laws. Laws are universal, universally applicable and universally consistent. Our understanding of them may change, but the laws do not. The laws of physics preclude origination and allow for only the change of energy from organization to disorganization; usable energy to unusable energy. The universe is winding down and only God could have wound it up.Is there anything in science you dont consider a theory?
Debunking false theories does not attack science, it upholds it. Was it attacking science to disprove the geocentrists? The alchemists? Was it attacking science to disprove the Piltdown man? Consensus via coercion isn't science, yet let someone assert that humans and daffodils do not share ancestry and see what happens to the funding.Are you attacking science because it does not address the issue of God?
The Bible is not a science text, but then science does not equal truth. The truth of God's existence defies science, as does the resurrection of Christ and every other miracle. Many on this forum have experienced miracles as well. God is very much involved in this world and small miracles happen all the time.Are you using Genesis as a science text by calling it scientific?
Wow, you certainly hate those who came before you, don't you? You really think you're smarter than the were? Trust me. You're not. Unless you've made some great discovery we don't know about you don't know ANYTHING that others before you didn't discover. Einstein formed the theory of relativity when he was old. I read about it in grade school. Columbus was 41 years old when he discovered the West Indies. I knew they were there when I was 10. I knew about the wheel before I could walk and I understood that fire could burn me very early. All these things I know because they were taught; because they were learned by those who went before. Those "goat herders" were completely self sufficient and could survive on their own in hostile conditions. Could you? The age of enlightenment only came about because some people could produce food efficiently enough so that others could spend their time studying, dreaming and recording what they learned. Without the work of the farmer there is no poet. Without the work of the community there are no schools.Creation for goat herders just isn't quite enough for me.
If you have already found your answers in Genesis why would you even bother with science. [/quote]Convenient, isn't it? Faced with a paradox that demonstrates the inability of naturalism to answer the question of origination you put an X in your thought process and proclaim "Here be dragons." Origination is impossible and yet here we are; perfectly functioning and able to generate independent thought. The "Big Bang" is held up as the great originator of the universe though the universe which arose from the it arrived in perfect order. There was no random broadcast of energy but rather the rapid expansion of a universe in more or less the same formation as we see now. I'll save you decades of calculations. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY this could happen. There is no possibility that random amino acids formed proteins in an oxygen free environment and somehow originated a life form capable of becoming everything from trees to poets. If one accepts that perhaps God exists in some form, then the logical question is "Who defines God? Man can't define God. Only God can define God. Yet though God reveals Himself through His Word many look at it and scoff, proclaiming that it isn't scientific.
What does science say about the resurrection? What does God say about your chances of avoiding eternal destruction if you reject it?
Yes, we call them laws. Laws are universal, universally applicable and universally consistent. Our understanding of them may change, but the laws do not. The laws of physics preclude origination and allow for only the change of energy from organization to disorganization; usable energy to unusable energy. The universe is winding down and only God could have wound it up.
Debunking false theories does not attack science, it upholds it. Was it attacking science to disprove the geocentrists? The alchemists? Was it attacking science to disprove the Piltdown man? Consensus via coercion isn't science, yet let someone assert that humans and daffodils do not share ancestry and see what happens to the funding.
Science is a field of study. Scientists work for a living. The big money wants science to prove to them that there is no God and thus no reason to fear God because the big money has good reason to fear God. Find an explanation for man's existence that doesn't include God and you'll be a multi-millionaire. Science is a business. No funding, not job. Funding comes from people with an agenda. Rare diseases aren't cured because the return on investment doesn't make it cost effective. That isn't because researchers are bad, it's because nobody is going to spend a billion dollars to make $500 grand.
The Bible is not a science text, but then science does not equal truth. The truth of God's existence defies science, as does the resurrection of Christ and every other miracle. Many on this forum have experienced miracles as well. God is very much involved in this world and small miracles happen all the time.
You haven't a clue to what Job was given to know of God. Job didn't even herd goats. 186,202 miles per second is the speed of light. You get an "F" in both classes Sparky. Try listening instead of speakingThe problem with these wonders which humbled Job is that these wonders themselves are now humbled by what we have now come to realize is really around us. Just for a refresher a light year is the distance that light travels in a years time at a speed of around 283,000 miles in one second as I recall. Most everything visible in the sky is only a very tiny few hundred light years away. Yet our puny little galaxy we exist inside of is something on the order of 100,000 light years across and like 99 percent of it is so obscured to us we can't even see what we are inside of. That's why we look at the photo of the next closest similar galaxy over to get a better idea. So on that basis Job's view of the sky just wasn't very impressive at all. But I guess it was good enough for goat herders.
Oh yeh, well you don't either. And I bet he knew some goat herders. And for the speed of light you are wrong there too. It depend on the medium it is passing thru. And I bet you have no idea of the age of the universe either.[emoji42]You haven't a clue to what Job was given to know of God. Job didn't even herd goats. 186,202 miles per second is the speed of light. You get an "F" in both classes Sparky. Try listening instead of speaking
I do not understand God. I am fixated on Jesus.
Simple, a psychological need to do so, which one symptom tends to be black and white thinking and a whole bunch of denial of well evidenced reality.
I think the psychological need is the unwillingness to confront fear and end up being forced to view life in uncertain terms.
I will go one step further and make a prediction. I predict that some are feeling so threatened having read this, that they will be unwilling to address this and that this thread will die from lack of interaction on it. I hope people will prove me wrong.
Why do humans and chimpanzees share a broken vitamin C gene at the exact same place in their genomes? Did God intentionally design both humans and chimps with a broken gene in the same place? Why not just create both species without that particular gene? A broken vitamin C gene makes it impossible for the body to produce vitamin C, so the inclusion of this gene at all is rather redundant if its broken. Did God create both species with this broken gene so as to make evolution appear true? God doesn't deceive us...
This piece of evidence alone shatters young earth creationist arguments. There is simply no reasonable way to explain this from a young-earth paradigm.
[emoji107]The genetic coding of apes and humans is similar because God created us similar. Whatever broke the code universally for humans would most likely do so for a species that shared this coding. What you raise here is an ununswerable question not a refutation of any sort.
Looking at total numbers, many, many more Christians agree with evolution, than atheists.
Sounds like the Bible has human nature down pretty good. Christians have a big advantage though. If we stick to the word of Jesus and recognize his love and return that love, Satan wouldn't get near us.
The bible is a book that still struggles to be understood. Having been around all this time and still not being understood would seem to decrease the probability of it being understood. But at the same time humanity and technology are growing at exponential rates which might now be used to understand even the bible. The problem with Genesis is that some people are trying to use it as a science text. Indeed some would now like to destroy the bible due to the manner in which it has been misused. It is universally misunderstood by many believers and nonbelievers. When the bible is used to deny science, it is biting the hand that feeds it. Entropy, methods of storing energy, gravity, atoms and other concepts you refer to are the result of science. But the methods of science are to leave no question unanswered. It seeks and will not stop as evidenced in your own words. So we are left to ponder without always knowing where we are going. Christianity needs to latch on and go for the ride and maybe it is happening but to help provide moral guidance rather than trying to throw our knowledge behind us.
People who would replace science with Genesis.Who is using the bible against science? The scientific method is simply out of scope when it comes to macroevolution because it cannot demonstrate what it claims. There is no scientific answer to the question if evolution is true show me! On the other hand with trigonometry and a space ship you could demonstrate the almost spherical nature of the earth.
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?