is creation outside of science's scope?

archaeologist · Jun 25, 2007

No. But you need science to tell you how gravity works

according to the book, Final Theory, science hasn't done that yet. in fact it remains a great mystery to science.

please provide links to say differently.

You're just being silly now

actually, i was completely serious as the word 'independent' as i used it means outside of science, not other branches of the same field. they run by the same principles thus they are not independent.

(by the way, this is the very same criteria used by atheists when asking for corroborration of the Biblical accounts. they do not accept other Biblical fields as independent.)

The hare cheweth the cud: Leviticus 11:6.

Bats as birds: Leviticus 11:13-19; Deuteronomy 14:11-18

1. cuds-- http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.html

2. bats-- http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/consultants/costa_rica/group2/bats_birds/index.html

the only real difference is that bats are clasified as mammals. no biggy.

archaeologist · Jun 25, 2007

Jesus reinterpreted Jewish divorce laws

i would disagree with such a statement. He put them back to the way God wanted them mathew 19:8--

8 He said to them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Mallon · Jun 25, 2007

archaeologist said:
according to the book, Final Theory, science hasn't done that yet. in fact it remains a great mystery to science.

please provide links to say differently.

Gravity is still largely a mystery. I never denied that. We do understand why apples fall, though. It follows the following simple equation:

You will not find that equation in the Bible. I hope you will not hold that against gravity, as you do evolution.

actually, i was completely serious as the word 'independent' as i used it means outside of science, not other branches of the same field. they run by the same principles thus they are not independent.

I might as well say that the Bible and science are not independent either because they are both studied only by mankind. Again, I think your semantics game is a bit silly (and a red herring).

(by the way, this is the very same criteria used by atheists when asking for corroborration of the Biblical accounts. they do not accept other Biblical fields as independent.)

Example?

1. cuds-- http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.html

2. bats-- http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/consultants/costa_rica/group2/bats_birds/index.html

the only real difference is that bats are clasified as mammals. no biggy.

But the Bible plainly teaches that "the hare... cheweth the cud." Shame on you for accepting man's secular theories over God's immaculate revelation!

shernren · Jun 25, 2007

archaeologist said:
when secular science gets it wrong so often and has to keep changing their theory to meet the changes in thinking, one must scratch their heads and wonder if they would ever get it right if they were givena lifespan of Noah and his predecessors?

how can anyone trust the adherents of this theory when each decade brings new revisions,scrapping what was declared & held as truth a mere 5, 10 years previously?

that alone disqualifies evolution as an option worth considering as an alternative to the Biblical account. the instability contradicts God and His way of doing tings.

[This] is no argument at all for the notion that all scientific conclusions are similarly bound eventually to be displaced. I do not believe that it will ever be shown that the blood of animals does not circulate; that anthrax is not caused by a bacterium; that proteins are not chains of amino acids. Human beings may indeed make mistakes, but I see no merit in the idea that they can make nothing but mistakes. - Henry Harris

archaeologist said:
i would disagree with such a statement. He put them back to the way God wanted them mathew 19:8--

So, in other words, there was something in the Torah that God did not want to be in it? That God wasn't happy with the divorce commandment in the Torah?

archaeologist · Jun 26, 2007

before this degrades too far, i will say once again thatGod created gravity He did not create evolution. it is solely of human origin.

remember there is an evil one out there looking to destroy believers,{deceiving and other such tricks as well} and it is both sad and scary that every time i have mentioned this fact no one who says they are a believer has acknowledged this fact or factor nor conceded that it is present in science.

why is that? secular people have no motive to prove the Bible, no freedom to do so as science has been constructed to remove God and all reference to HIm from all research.

this thread is about 'is creation outside the scope of science' and i think i have presented enough information to say 'yes it is'. i have seen no credible argument against that question but i have seen a lot of defense of using, adopting, adapting secular ways and thinking, mixing it with God's word or changing God's word to fit the theory.

do you have any credible arguments to deny the question posed as the title of this thread?

Assyrian · Jun 26, 2007

archaeologist said:
i am going to stop there. idisagree with you andiwill not get into a petty fight over who did what, when. i donot know the reasons why AIG did what they did nor will i speculate on it. i see nothing in that omited sentence that changes what was said.

anyone who does, is probably looking for justification to assail the letter's credibility and message.

I would say anyone who does is convinced by the glaring disparity between what Barr actually said and how AiG presented the quote. Is it possible you do not want to see?

yet you would not use the same criteria on the last i read, science as you would on the infallible word of God?
science is about as accurate as a person using a shotgun filled with buckshot. some of the pellets will hit the target once in awhile.

The bible is inspired by God, but he often speaks metaphorically. What is certainly not infallible is people's ability to to figure out the meaning of the passages and decide what is literal and what is not.

On the other hand, if science was like buckshot as you claim, we would still be sending letters by mail coach.

the bible doesn't need to be refined, it is the truth and the truth does not change. it is also a revelation of what God did, no revision necessary, espically from those who do not believe n God.

If that were so you would still believe Peter was the first pope and that the eucharist is bread changed into Christ's flesh. You would believe the bible teaches that the sun goes round the earth as Christians have in the past. It is not the bible that is refined, it is our interpretation of it that has undergone many revisions.

rrriiiiggghhhttt... science is true because science says so. that is like the criminal who tells the sheriff, i didn't steal and my ex-con friends will tell you i didn't steal.

the Bible tells us that a person who speaks of his/her own testimony, that testimony is not true. seems thatthis is what science is always doing. so when we get independent confirmation then maybe science will have a chance.

Science is not a single person. There are many different people in many different disciplines, over many different generations. What sort of independent confirmation are you looking for? Geology is independent from biology. Astronomy is independent from them too. The astronomers who developed the Big Bang theory were certainly independent from astronomers who held the previous steady state theory and disagree vigorously with them.

You mean you want independent confirmation of science from people who aren't scientists? Who from Boy Scouts? The Women's Institute?

because God didn't speak metaphorically there as attested by all the other references in the Bible and by the results we can observe in modern living. science isn't right and because God and jesus didn't say follow science, they siad--follow us:

Deuteronomy 7:4
For they will turn your sons away from following Me, to serve other gods; so the anger of the LORD will be aroused against you and destroy you suddenly

Deuteronomy 8:19
Then it shall be, if you by any means forget the LORD your God, and follow other gods, and serve them and worship them, I testify against you this day that you shall surely perish

Numbers 32:12
except Caleb the son of Jephunneh, the Kenizzite, and Joshua the son of Nun, for they have wholly followed the LORD

Jeremiah 16:12
And you have done worse than your fathers, for behold, each one follows the dictates of his own evil heart, so that no one listens to Me

Matthew 10:38
And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

Matthew 9:9
[ Matthew the Tax Collector ] As Jesus passed on from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office. And He said to him, Follow Me. So he arose and followed Him

Matthew 19:21
Jesus said to him, If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.

here is the link so you can look up more verses
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword...startnumber=101&startnumber=126&startnumber=1

at no time do They say, follow science or unbelievers. doesn't mean thatyou can't use science, but when yu do,you follow God NOT secular views, reasoning, theories, conclusions and so on.

*** i need to go to work but i will finish this in an hour or so. sorry.

Oh dear, I saw a list of bible quotes and I thought, great, some scripture we can get our teeth into. But no, just a bunch of irrelevant texts that say nothing about whether God was speaking metaphorically or not. Well you say we should follow Jesus, but Jesus never preached six day creationism. Why do you?

shernren · Jun 26, 2007

archaeologist said:
before this degrades too far, i will say once again thatGod created gravity He did not create evolution. it is solely of human origin.

How do you know? Aren't the people who tell you that gravity is true the same people who tell you that evolution is true?

archaeologist said:
do you have any credible arguments to deny the question posed as the title of this thread?

But I already answered it right from the start:

#5: my pragmatic point of view is this: Scientists have already looked back 13.7 billion years. Even if they can't look into the crucial few seconds before those years, that's still many, many orders of magnitude too long for the YECs.

Creation is a doctrine, and even TEs believe that God created the heavens and the earth. Creationism, the belief that God must have done it recently and rapidly and thrown in a global Flood or else Christianity is that less true, is a hodge-podge mix of scientific and philosophical claims that have been left in the dust for a long time now.

Creation is outside science's scope because science cannot access God. Creationism is also outside science's scope ... because it has been rejected for numerous valid reasons.

archaeologist · Jun 26, 2007

shernern:

So, in other words, there was something in the Torah that God did not want to be in it? That God wasn't happy with the divorce commandment in the Torah?

like i said,the most unliteral people are the most literal. Jesus said 'as it was inthe beginning' there were two beginnings.

assyrian:

Is it possible you do not want to see?

i read it, the only people who have a problem with what AIG did are those who turn genesis into an allegorical account. the people who are afraid to see are those who need to change scriptures.

On the other hand, if science was like buckshot as you claim, we would still be sending letters by mail coach.

a little miffed are we? science misses more than it has hits

If that were so you would still believe Peter was the first pope and that the eucharist is bread changed into Christ's flesh. You would believe the bible teaches that the sun goes round the earth as Christians have in the past. It is not the bible that is refined, it is our interpretation of it that has undergone many revisions

since all those are r.c.catholic teachings why would i still believe such things? i am not r.c.catholic nor was the r.c.c. the only church in existence.

so scientists are the only ones who have never held a false thought? this is the typical response of those who do not believe the Bible or God. hold the past over someone's head and use it sans understanding and try to make the church look foolish.

Science is not a single person

.

so everything with science is literal while the infallible word of God is changed to metaphor and allegory?? sounds like someone has their priorities mixed up.

disagree vigorously with them.

wow, i didn't know that disagreeing vigoriously was a criteria from God. i thought it was 'test the spirits'.

You mean you want independent confirmation of science from people who aren't scientists?

now you're an elitest. only science people can talk about science or know things.

amazing, and God did not use one scientist to write any of the books of the Bible. why would that be?

do I smell jealousy? revenge on God?

But no, just a bunch of irrelevant texts that say nothing about whether God was speaking metaphorically or not.

that is your whole argument. whether something is allegorical or metaphorical or not. and do you get to decide? what about God doesn't He get a say in all this, after all, they are His words?

there is not one allegorical or metaphorical verse used there all were verse which specifically stated God's will. you use this argument to avoid hearing God's voice and His words, you are condemned to follow science from this day forth.

God does not play games nor does He fool around. His words are His words and He does not mix them with those not of Him.

listen all ye you think the same, God is God and there is no other.

Rudolph Hucker · Jun 26, 2007

archaeologist said:
i do not know if this has been talked about yet but over the years and after many discussions with non-believers, and progressive creationists i have been led to believe that creation is not a scientific issue as it remains outside of science's reach.

it is surely a theological one but not a scientific one because if one looks at the creative act, one would see that God did it in a fashion that leaves no doubt, who is God.

it was not done via the scientific rules or laws as all such items were created at that point in time as well. God was not subject to such laws but created them to make the world and the universe work as he wanted them.

according to the article--Big Bang Theory---from MSN Encarta we find the following:

"because scientists cannot look back in time beyond that early epoch, the actual big bang is hidden from them. there isno way at present to detect the origin of the universe. further, the big bang theory does not explain what existed before the big bang."

such a statement adds fuel to the thinking i propose. science is very limited and for the most part follows secular thinking and constructs which have no foundation in God, in fact science is structured to omit God, which then puts restrictions on the kind of evidence that can be considered when investigating this issue.

is creation outside the reach of science? if it follows secular ways and thinking then the obvious answer is ---yes.

Archie ... is that really you?

RH

archaeologist · Jun 26, 2007

Aren't the people who tell you that gravity is true the same people who tell you that evolution is true?

i don't know, i see it in action with my own senses. but then con menspeak both turth and lies as well. what is your point?

Creation is a doctrine

no. it is a revealed act of God, done once from His power. there are no alternatives.

Scientists have already looked back 13.7 billion years. Even if they can't look into the crucial few seconds before those years, that's still many, many orders of magnitude too long for the YECs.

that is their belief not the reality. i see you offer no credible links to back this up nor state what evidence they use to proclaim they can look into the past.

the recent murder in ohio is an excellant example. scientists can lookat all the clues and surmise the cop did it, they can say they can look into the past but in reality, the only way to find out the truth is if the cop confesses honestly. the evidence can point a finger but it is not seeing into the past, that 'seeing' is speculation on the part of the investigators, as evidence can go many different ways.

the same with creation. science can say they have evidence and say they can see into the past but in reality they are only seeing what they want to see, what they speculate, not what took place.

Rudolph Hucker · Jun 26, 2007

Yep, same old Archie.

This place feels like home already.

KokoTheGorilla · Jun 26, 2007

Koko so happy to finding Archie!
It small Internet!

Koko can't replying to Rudolph PM because...
Sorry, You should have 5 posts before you can send a new PM now you have 0 posts
The Admin.

Koko not ignoring!

Assyrian · Jun 26, 2007

archaeologist said:
part 2--
we don't need science to tell us when something is wrong,

Of course we do. Science told us the geocentrist interpretations of Luther, Malanchton, Calvin and the Catholic church were wrong. It is science that tells us the flat earth interpretation of Cosmas Indicopleustes is wrong and that the rest of the church was right to take those passages metaphorically.

but what verse or words in Gen. 1 gives you the idea that it is allegorical? and why would God use allegory to describe what He did in lightof the fact that NO ONE was present to witness His act?

More poetic than allegory, we find the allegory in the next two chapters, you know the talking snake that isn't a snake and all that.

Genesis doesn't even say the world was created in six days, that is only found in the metaphorical description in Exodus which describes God as a weary labourer refreshed after a days rest.

what purpose would it serve to be allegorical, given the fact that God is very clear that when He does something, EVERYONE knows it is Him doing it.

What's the purpose in Revelation being allegorical?

not at all. i would have to study all the references to creation to give you a better idea of what i staught BUT God would not say one thing then do another--that would be sin nor would He allow His writers to misrepresent what He did, thatwould be sin. God is sinless.

Staught? Not being picky I just don't follow what you are saying.

God often described things in metaphor and then does something very different from a literal interpretation of the metaphor. Jesus came to earth as a man (homo sapiens sapiens) but said he was a vine (vitis vinifera). He said he was the good shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep, but he was a carpenter turned rabbi who died for human beings. That is not lying, it is metaphor and parable.

except their foundation is found in sinful man, based upon assumptions and the inability to verify. among other things.

God told us when--'in the begining...' doyou need more and how can science determine when the beginning was? how would we know it was right?

Through multiple lines of evidence, from radiometric dating of multi billion year old meteorites, to speed of light measurement and even plain old geometric triangulation to confirm the distance measurement for Cepheid variable stars, which in turn confirm distance measurements and ages using redshift.

On the other hand, you six day literalism is founded on an interpretation by sinful man too but it has nothing to confirm it.

God is sinless and immune, I lean on Him. Yes it has, that theistic evolution is in error. (ha ha)

Unless God who is sinless and immune has said that you interpretation is sinless and immune too how do you know that your theology and interpretation are right? Are you more sinless and immune than Luther who called Copernicus a fool, or Calvin who believed the bible taught geocentrism?

i am not asking you to follow me, i am saying that God has said such and such, follow that. the Bible tells us that God does not change--so why would the truth change or be subject to revision by secular man?

You don't ask us to follow you, you just claim that everyone who disagrees with your interpretation is a heretic and not a true follower of Christ. That makes you, what, some sort of protestant Pope?

God does not change, neither does the truth. But interpretations of scripture have been wrong in the past, what make you think you are immune?

i know what the verse means, but that still doesn't mean or imply that Gen. 1 is allegorical.

It contradicts your claim that interpretations are not truth and that truth isn't found in a non-literal version of the gen.

But you know, I don't think I have ever met anyone so absolutely confident in their ability to understand God word, but so cagey about telling us what verses mean.

there are a lot of good books out there on heresy which explains what it is, but suffice it to say, if it disagrees with God, then it isn't right.

If you cannot say what heresy is then please stop using it as an insult for people you don't agree with.

BUT i am not trying to prove a young earth creation. the Bible only says' in the beginning...' which tells us that finding a date is not germane to the story but that God created it all in 6 days is.

Then stop claiming you can prove creation.

i am tired of such charges especially when they come from those who cannot defend their position and ust resort to attacking the person with which they disagree . the Bible says not to pursue, adopt, believe,etc. secular, sinful man's ways, thoughts, and so on.

it isn't whether one understands or not, but that those who say they are christians are actually following God or not. if you accept and follow sinful man then you are not following God. it is not a scientific issue but a spiritual one.

Yet you believe the earth is round and orbits the sun? Those are sinful secular man's ideas. So is trusting in computers to deliver these messages.

But as long as you keep trying to criticise science without actually understanding it, people will keep pulling you up on that.

not at all. it has too may weaknesses to be relied on and i recall reading that it is being questioned all over again with new compliants and discoveries undermining its reliability.

So you claim of being able to observe and test creation is baseless?

[As I said before God did not tell us about heliocentrism or gravitational theory, that does not mean he lied, it just means he did not tell us about it.
/QUOTE]

But those things exist, whereas evolution does not; one is not telling all the details the other is a deception, a contrary method whose origin is found in secular man not God.

Click to expand...

Not mentioning a false theory cannot be any more a lie than not mentioning a true one. Your argument makes no sense.

when you research the origin of evolution, you will fnd that not ne scientist ascribed its 'discovery' to God. in fact it removed God altogether, so why would christinas 'christianize' a secular theory then bend and manipulate scriptures to make a secular model fit what God did?

Click to expand...

If doesn't make one bit of difference to the accuracy of science if the scientist is a Christian or not. It was a pagan Greek who discovered the earth was round, Watson and Crick who discovered the structure of DNA were atheists. The earth is still round and DNA still a helix. It is just that we know by faith who is made it all.

On the other hand, it took me about three seconds to do a Google search to find a quote where Darwin attributed evolution to a supremely powerful and wise Being who controls it all.

yes there is and it depends if you follow secular, sinful man or God's ways in science. there are reasons, the Bible lays them out very clearly.

Click to expand...

God's way is truth. There is no conflict between God and science.

i am not being intolerant all i am doing is pointing back to God, you get to choose what you want to believe and follow. if you choose secular science then you haven't chosen God. the Bible is very clear about this.

Click to expand...

Only if the secular science contradicts God. It doesn't. It just contradicts your interpetation of scripture, and that is one thing you don't seem to tolerate.

Mallon · Jun 26, 2007

RudolphHucker said:
Archie ... is that really you?

You know this guy??

Mallon · Jun 26, 2007

archaeologist said:
this thread is about 'is creation outside the scope of science' and i think i have presented enough information to say 'yes it is'. i have seen no credible argument against that question but i have seen a lot of defense of using, adopting, adapting secular ways and thinking, mixing it with God's word or changing God's word to fit the theory.

You were given credible arguments concerning the nature of starlight. You disagreed, and then defected to the Discover letter (post #202). I asked you what was wrong with Discover's reply to the letter (#204), you couldn't say and just conceded that it was "worth investigating more" (#209). So please don't pretend that you haven't been given any credible answers, archaeologist. Just because you don't like them or cannot understand them doesn't mean they are not credible. You still haven't been able to explain why our perception of starlight (or sunlight, for that matter) does not allow us to see into the past. Defecting to a letter someone wrote to Discover magazine that you are not able to defend doesn't count.

do you have any credible arguments to deny the question posed as the title of this thread?

It's already been done! Please don't ignore the last 24 pages of conversation!

Assyrian · Jun 26, 2007

archaeologist said:
shernern:
like i said,the most unliteral people are the most literal. Jesus said 'as it was inthe beginning' there were two beginnings.

John 15:27 And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.

assyrian:

i read it, the only people who have a problem with what AIG did are those who turn genesis into an allegorical account. the people who are afraid to see are those who need to change scriptures.

Or maybe it is only YECs who are afraid to see the deceitfulness of fellow creationists. The dishonesty is plain form the letter.

On the other hand, if science was like buckshot as you claim, we would still be sending letters by mail coach.

Click to expand...

a little miffed are we? science misses more than it has hits

An unsupported claim that doesn't answer the point. If science missed like buckshot technology would not be getting more and more advanced.

since all those are r.c.catholic teachings why would i still believe such things? i am not r.c.catholic nor was the r.c.c. the only church in existence.

Of course there is the Greek and Russian Orthodox too. And the Copts. You would not be a non denominational whatever you are, or believe the earth goes round the sun, if doctrine and interpretation of scripture had not changed over the last two millennia.

so scientists are the only ones who have never held a false thought? this is the typical response of those who do not believe the Bible or God. hold the past over someone's head and use it sans understanding and try to make the church look foolish.

You claimed the bible does not change, which is irrelevant since interpretation and doctrine has. It is a simple fact.

so everything with science is literal while the infallible word of God is changed to metaphor and allegory?? sounds like someone has their priorities mixed up.

No the metaphors and allegories in the bible have been there from the beginning. But what makes you think that literal has some sort of higher priority than metaphor? Was Jesus giving us second best when he spoke in parable? Is the book of Revelation some kind of second class scripture?

wow, i didn't know that disagreeing vigoriously was a criteria from God. i thought it was 'test the spirits'.

You were asking for independent confirmation for science. I would have thought that 'disagreeing vigorously' was a good criteria for independence.

now you're an elitest. only science people can talk about science or know things.

You ask for independent confirmation for science and you reject scientists as not being independent, but asking how it can come from non scientists is 'elitist'.

It remind me of the Atheist argument again the resurrection. All of the witnesses to the resurrection were Christians and they are biased. It is a silly argument.

amazing, and God did not use one scientist to write any of the books of the Bible. why would that be?

Maybe because there were not modern scientist around at the time. Unless you include ancient researchers like Solomon who recognised in Ecclesiastes that mankind are animals, Eccles 3:18 I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. 19 For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. Of Luke who was a Greek Physician.

do I smell jealousy? revenge on God?

No just another olfactory hallucination.

that is your whole argument. whether something is allegorical or metaphorical or not. and do you get to decide? what about God doesn't He get a say in all this, after all, they are His words?

Sure, just show us where God says the six days are literal...

there is not one allegorical or metaphorical verse used there all were verse which specifically stated God's will. you use this argument to avoid hearing God's voice and His words, you are condemned to follow science from this day forth.

Except not one of the verses said anything about creationism. That seems a regular feature of the verse lists you post and your public service cut and pastes.

God does not play games nor does He fool around. His words are His words and He does not mix them with those not of Him.

listen all ye you think the same, God is God and there is no other.

And you are in danger of taking his word in vain when you paste verses that have nothing to do with the discussion and claim they support you.

Assyrian · Jun 26, 2007

KokoTheGorilla said:
Koko so happy to finding Archie!
It small Internet!

Koko can't replying to Rudolph PM because...
Sorry, You should have 5 posts before you can send a new PM now you have 0 posts
The Admin.

Koko not ignoring!

*David Attenboroughwhisper*

KokoTheGorilla?
The KokoTheGorilla?
This is truly amazing.

*adopts non threatening posture*
*shuffles forward*

shernren · Jun 26, 2007

archaeologist said:
i don't know, i see it in action with my own senses. but then con menspeak both turth and lies as well. what is your point?

No, seriously. How do you know that gravity makes stuff fall down?

There are plenty of other good theories. For example, Aristotle proposed that stuff falls to earth because it was originally made out of the earth and it wants to return to where it belongs. How do you know that's not true?

Aristotle also proposed that the reason that stars and heavenly objects don't fall down to earth is because - you guessed it! - they're made of different stuffing altogether, and thus don't feel any need to fall back to earth either. How do you know that's not true? How do you know that gravity keeps the moon going around the earth?

Who told you that?

Assyrian · Jun 26, 2007

Assyrian said:
*David Attenboroughwhisper*
KokoTheGorilla?

The KokoTheGorilla?

This is truly amazing.
*adopts non threatening posture*
*shuffles forward*

*Dives for cover as five dancing bananas arrive on the scene*

archaeologist · Jun 26, 2007

we find the allegory in the next two chapters, you know the talking snake that isn't a snake and all that.

amazing! so God's punishment on the snake means nothing and the fact that Newsweek had an article on snakes and that they used to have limbs is just more creationist propoganda.

{can't find the article right now, the title escapes me}

Genesis doesn't even say the world was created in six days, that is only found in the metaphorical description in Exodus which describes God as a weary labourer refreshed after a days rest.

yes it does. who decided that exodus became metaphorical at that moment? please provide credible sources for such thinking.

Staught? Not being picky I just don't follow what you are saying.

sorry,i am not a great typist: staught = is taught.

God often described things in metaphor and then does something very different from a literal interpretation of the metaphor

and genesis is not worded in the same fashion. it would take great translational gymnastics to prove it was allegorical.

Through multiple lines of evidence, from radiometric dating of multi billion year old meteorites, to speed of light measurement and even plain old geometric triangulation to confirm the distance measurement for Cepheid variable stars, which in turn confirm distance measurements and ages using redshift.

science is true because science and its tools say it is true. sorry. i renew my call for independent corroborration.

On the other hand, you six day literalism is founded on an interpretation by sinful man too but it has nothing to confirm it.

so you are calling God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit sinful?? they are the ones who wrote the Bible and it is very clear that 6 days was the time frame.

calling something allegorical or metaphorical doesn't change the truth.

Are you more sinless and immune than Luther who called Copernicus a fool, or Calvin who believed the bible taught geocentrism?

people have doubts about luthor, who it seems was very anti-semetic. calvin had his own problems since he advocated killing his adversaries.

they are mere men like anyone else.

you just claim that everyone who disagrees with your interpretation is a heretic and not a true follower of Christ. That makes you, what, some sort of protestant Pope?

i don't believe that Jesus taught that we are to follow interpretations. that is a word people hide behind whenthey do not want to deal with the truth.

also, i could careless if you disagree with me, but when you change God's word, declare it something it is not then those actions open a person up to a charge of heresy.

[If science missed like buckshot technology would not be getting more and more advanced/QUOTE]

that is if you count modern technology an advancement. i started a thread in Bib. Arch. on ancient technology and used as my starting point the ancint greek computer.

we do have one and here is one linkof many that talks about it:

http://www.ancientx.com/nm/anmviewer.asp?a=28&z=1

solomon tells us that 'there is nothing new under the sun' so i wouldn't herald modern technology just yet.

But you know, I don't think I have ever met anyone so absolutely confident in their ability to understand God word, but so cagey about telling us what verses mean.

Click to expand...

you do not have to put up with the abuse that i do.

Then stop claiming you can prove creation

Click to expand...

why? creation happened as stated in Gen. 1 and throughout the Bible it just didn't happen according to theistic evolution or other alternative models.

for they accept, adopt, adapt secular theories that have no basis in divine origin and are meant to deceive not lead to the truth.

Yet you believe the earth is round and orbits the sun? Those are sinful secular man's ideas.

Click to expand...

no, they are not secular man's ideas. these things were created by God not invented by a man like evolution. big diference between discovering what God did and inventing something that omits Him from the process.

So is trusting in computers to deliver these messages

Click to expand...

asked and answered. move on.

But as long as you keep trying to criticise science without actually understanding it, people will keep pulling you up on that

Click to expand...

that is another non-believer's favorite tricks--hide under the 'you do not understand' argument. please, i thought you could do better than this.

So you claim of being able to observe and test creation is baseless?

Click to expand...

you can't test creation, it is done and gone. at best all you can do is test the results. oh wait, we don't even need to do that as we can see it in action every day, every season,, every pregnancy and so on.

there is very little to test. do ou want God to do it all over again just so you can continue in your scientific games and quest?

Not mentioning a false theory cannot be any more a lie than not mentioning a true one. Your argument makes no sense

Click to expand...

consider the source. ifit is not of God why do you accept it and then modify it or scriptures so the two will seem in synch with each other?

If doesn't make one bit of difference to the accuracy of science if the scientist is a Christian or not

Click to expand...

then the scripture 'the blind leading the blind' means nothing to you and is solely another one of your mirale metaphors?

or the verses found in 1 Timothy which state that 'men are being deceived'

herein lies your problem, you equate non-christian with christian when it comes to science and that is wrong. they are not the same and they do not have compatible purposes.

On the other hand, it took me about three seconds to do a Google search to find a quote where Darwin attributed evolution to a supremely powerful and wise Being who controls it all

Click to expand...

yet you don't post it for all to see.

God's way is truth. There is no conflict between God and science

Click to expand...

then you call God a liar as he said 'friendship with the word is enmity with God' or when he had the whole book of 1 John written.

there is conflict between secular , non-christian science and God. they state God did not create the earth, while God said He did it in 6 days. christianizing secular science is not harmonizing the field with God but just a waste of time and another deception.

and you wonder why the word 'heresy' crops up in the discussion.

is creation outside of science's scope?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

you are not reading this.

Well-Known Member

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

you are not reading this.

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Member

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

you are not reading this.

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency