Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[AV1611VET]

So not being able to confirm something is equal to denying it ?

Ask them yourself.

I've been here for 16 years.

I like to think I know how they think.

 

[AV1611VET]

I learned from scholars who taught Genesis from the Hebrew.

There's your problem.

You believe in the Gap Theory, don't you?

The Gap Theory says the earth WAS MADE formless and void; whereas the Bible only says the earth was without form and void.

Not MADE formless and void.

Someone's playing loose with the Bible, isn't he?

 

[Kylie]

I try not to, but science sure does, when they truncate 99.999% of it by denying the spiritual world.

You really have no idea how science works, do you?

Science will accept ANYTHING if evidence is presented for it, and that evidence can stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Kylie]

I am not a a young earth creationist.

I learned from scholars who taught Genesis from the Hebrew. Not English translations. Certain ancients that knew and studied the Hebrew text would have been matter of fact about it when science finally caught up and discovered there had been other worlds created before this one. The ancients did not understand what those other worlds were exactly. But, they knew the Bible speaks of such a thing. So those who study the Scriptures can thank science for finally unveiling in detail what the Torah and some of the NT had been saying all along. Science verified the Bible.

If interested? Online a free book is offered for reading on the subject.
Written by a scientist, no less.

Without Form and Void - Frontpage

Please note in the chapter listing the title of the first chapter.

grace and peace ........

Again, this does not answer my question.

How do you test your "God did it" position? Show me that creationism, in whatever form you believe is true, is falsifiable.

 

[Homeowner]

Ask them yourself.

I've been here for 16 years.

I like to think I know how they think.

Well that is one way to evade actually answering the question.

 

[AV1611VET]

You really have no idea how science works, do you?

Science will accept ANYTHING if evidence is presented for it, and that evidence can stand up to scrutiny.

"Evidence" being the key word, correct?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well that is one way to evade actually answering the question.

Not being able to confirm something is not the same thing as denying it.

 

[Kylie]

"Evidence" being the key word, correct?

Yes.

So show me the TESTABLE EVIDENCE for the spiritual world, and if that evidence is able to withstand scrutiny, I'll accept it.

I suspect I'm going to get something vague in response. But I challenge you, give me something specific.

 

[AV1611VET]

So show me the TESTABLE EVIDENCE for the spiritual world, and if that evidence is able to withstand scrutiny, I'll accept it.

Merry Christmas

But cause-and-effect aside right now, "testable" is the key word here now, isn't it?

Just like you guys can test the ylem that the big bang configured this universe with?

 

[Kylie]

Not being able to confirm something is not the same thing as denying it.

Ah, so when science says nothing about the spiritual world because it can't be tested, they aren't DENYING it, are they? They're just saying they can't confirm it. So your claim in post 358 was just plain WRONG, wasn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, so when science says nothing about the spiritual world because it can't be tested, they aren't DENYING it, are they? They're just saying they can't confirm it. So your claim in post 358 was just plain WRONG, wasn't it?

Science has tested the spiritual world with their myopic instruments and such and concluded the spiritual world is inconclusive.

I'm not buying it.

Science changes words in the Bible ("miracle" to "magic" -- "child in the womb" to "fetus") to suit their agendas.

From their garbage comes such stuff as pray to milk cartons instead of God, some invisible dragon in someone's garage, give all other gods equal airtime, and so on and so forth.

Ya ... my Post 358 stands as written.

 

[Kylie]

Science has tested the spiritual world with their myopic instruments and such and concluded the spiritual world is inconclusive.

I'm not buying it.

Science changes words in the Bible ("miracle" to "magic" -- "child in the womb" to "fetus") to suit their agendas.

From their garbage comes such stuff as pray to milk cartons instead of God, some invisible dragon in someone's garage, give all other gods equal airtime, and so on and so forth.

Ya ... my Post 358 stands as written.

Here's how it looks to me...

You can't have your interpretation of the Bible without occasionally needing to say that reality can take a hike. But the only way you can say that reality needs to take a hike is to claim that scientists have reality all wrong. And so you invent a conspiracy where scientists are all out to get rid of God and make everyone an atheist. And you also claim utter nonsense such as the ridiculous notion that scientists are telling us to pray to milk cartons and such.

You, on the other hand, seem to be twisting everything to suit YOUR agenda of demonizing science whenever you can so as to justify your rejection of it whenever you have painted yourself into a corner.

That's how it looks to me.

 

[Homeowner]

Not being able to confirm something is not the same thing as denying it.

Sounds like science to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

You, on the other hand, seem to be twisting everything to suit YOUR agenda of demonizing science whenever you can so as to justify your rejection of it whenever you have painted yourself into a corner.

Science marches more and more to a different drummer today.

People can use science to justify lifestyles that are anathema to God, justify killing their unborn, justify saying the Flood didn't happen, and I could go on and on and on and on and on.

 

[Kylie]

Science marches more and more to a different drummer today.

People can use science to justify lifestyles that are anathema to God, justify killing their unborn, justify saying the Flood didn't happen, and I could go on and on and on and on and on.

And so you come full circle back to where you started, assuming your conclusion in order to prove that your conclusion is true.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sounds like science to me.

There are several products that I think science created to ... shall I say ... decrease the surplus population (as Ebenezer Scrooge put it).

And I think science did it because it is starting to work in lockstep with ...

John 8:44b He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.

As science moves more towards him, its products will get worse and worse.

Culminating during the Tribulation Period.

This is why, while scientists are working to get their products literally under your skin, some preachers are railing against those devices as tools of the devil.

 

[Bradskii]

.

 

[Bradskii]

Science marches more and more to a different drummer today.

People can use science to justify lifestyles that are anathema to God, justify killing their unborn, justify saying the Flood didn't happen, and I could go on and on and on and on and on.

You do. Unsubscribing...

 

[AV1611VET]

You do. Unsubscribing...

I know.

Your head is about to explode ... right?

 

[Homeowner]

There are several products that I think science created to ... shall I say ... decrease the surplus population

You do realize that "surplus" population is only possible in first place due to scientific advances in agriculture, medical fields, transportation and so on ?

I mean there is certain romanticism for certain people of having half of your kids die before they turn three years old due to diseases, poor nutrition etc. and people being considered ancient and dying at 40 due to backbreaking labor we can nowadays relegate to machines.

Doubt it is actually that pleasant to live that dream though.

Now whatever dystopia is possible with AIs, techonological singularity and considerations like that will probably require another thread.