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.
Archaeology- http://madworldnews.com/archaeologists-biblical-jesus/ . BTW-Jesus is mentioned in more than 60 text outside of the Biblical text. What do you believe, if you don't believe the Bible, or the Enuma elish?Written history is not, cannot be considered as scientific evidence. It may describe scientific evidence, tell us where to look for scientific evidence, but it is not in itself evidence. The Bible is no more evidence of Special Creation than Darwin's Origin of Species is evidence of evolution.
Right. It's the ossuaries that are the evidence, not the Bible.Archaeology- http://madworldnews.com/archaeologists-biblical-jesus/ . BTW-Jesus is mentioned in more than 60 text outside of the Biblical text.
As Rick has pointed out, this subject is off-topic here. It's his thread, so it's his rules. Now, do you have any examples from earth science of creationists and conventional scientists using the same data?If the fundamental laws of physics can break down at some point in time, then these
fundamental laws of physics cannot ever be regarded as constants. Science assumes
that all fundamental forces are constant through time.
Great comparison there...The Bible is no more evidence of the Flood than Darwin's Origin of Species is evidence of evolution.
It doesn't matter if it is an historical narrative or not. It is still not, in itself, scientific evidence. And unsubstantiated claims like that about the nature of the narrative don't improve the situation.Great comparison there...
(not)
Darwin's book doesn't even claim to be a historical narrative, and there are no eye witnesses to the actual origins of species either.
Hello sfs.As Rick has pointed out, this subject is off-topic here. It's his thread, so it's his rules. Now, do you have any examples from earth science of creationists and conventional scientists using the same data?
If you have a case where rock strata were considered evidence by both creation science and secular science, present it. That's what this thread is for.Hello sfs.
Geological rock strata would be considered evidence by both creation science
and secular science.
So sfs, if I asked you how old a specific rock strata was, how would you determine
it's age?
It is not the type of break down you suggest. The break down is the pre-physics of what we observe today. That is how our physics developed. At the big bang there were no atoms. There was a period where subatomic particles had to form, then eventually atoms; and at that only hydrogen and helium. It was not until stars formed that larger atoms could be formed and supernovae for the heavy elements. Atoms take up an enormous amount of space with respect to their components (electron, protons, neutrons, etc.). So, its not the actually a breakdown or different physics you want it to be to support your position, rather the process in which physics developed. Of course you are thinking "how do we know"? We know because light from stellar objects millions of light years distant is just now reaching us, and the physics and chemistry we observe is the same as we observe on earth today.Hello sfs.
If the fundamental laws of physics can break down at some point in time, then these
fundamental laws of physics cannot ever be regarded as constants. Science assumes
that all fundamental forces are constant through time.
Please address the topic of this thread -- SAME EVIDENCE - OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS.The Flood.
However, you limited the evidence that may be used to the evidence the mainstream uses.
But there's more to the Flood story than only that.
The Flood is backed by written history (conveniently dismissed as legend or myth) and accounts for the apparent bottleneck the gene pool had to go through.
But you've heard my view on this many times before, i think i'll leave the discussion this time.
Please address the topic of this thread -- SAME EVIDENCE - OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS.Universe-one spoken sentence. So, He spoke it into existence. I just added "let there be light"
Please address the topic of this thread -- SAME EVIDENCE - OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS.RickG, sorry I scared you away(again) with such a difficult question.
Please address the topic of this thread -- SAME EVIDENCE - OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS.Written history is not, cannot be considered as scientific evidence. It may describe scientific evidence, tell us where to look for scientific evidence, but it is not in itself evidence. The Bible is no more evidence of the Flood than Darwin's Origin of Species is evidence of evolution.
Please address the topic of this thread -- SAME EVIDENCE - OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS.You are aware, I trust, that the more reputable sort of creation scientists have abandoned polystrate fossils. their formation is too well understood by conventional geologists.
Please address the topic of this thread -- SAME EVIDENCE - OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS.They assume that they are all right side up, but this is not always the case, see the picture in post #30 for an example.
Please address the topic of this thread -- SAME EVIDENCE - OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS.Hello sfs.
Geological rock strata would be considered evidence by both creation science
and secular science.
So sfs, if I asked you how old a specific rock strata was, how would you determine
it's age?
Please address the topic of this thread -- SAME EVIDENCE - OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS.If you have a case where rock strata were considered evidence by both creation science and secular science, present it. That's what this thread is for.
Please address the topic of this thread -- SAME EVIDENCE - OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS.Archaeology- http://madworldnews.com/archaeologists-biblical-jesus/ . BTW-Jesus is mentioned in more than 60 text outside of the Biblical text. What do you believe, if you don't believe the Bible, or the Enuma elish?
Please address the topic of this thread -- SAME EVIDENCE - OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS.Right. It's the ossuaries that are the evidence, not the Bible.
Please address the topic of this thread -- SAME EVIDENCE - OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS.The Bible tells us about James(the brother of Jesus), and Caiaphas. How does one know who they were without the Bible?
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?