Something I need to get off my chest about the whole creation/evolution thing.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

And this is exactly what I've been trying to get at. Science will always assume a natural process occurred...even if a supernatural process occurred.

Science will always look for natural processes, but where it cannot find them, it cannot assume that the causes of observed effects are natural. It's the difference between epistemological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. Science doesn't make up natural causes for observable effects; it runs repeatable experiments on the basis of hypotheses to determine which (of many) hypothesized natural causes might account for the initial observation. If repeated experimentation comes to the conclusion that a particular natural phenomenon is the cause of the observed effect, then it is settled, and as a discipline that deals with the mechanics of the natural world, it will always look for those. But it doesn't make them up where it can't find them, because even if you are a metaphysical naturalist (an atheist), that's not science.

What you're describing is atheism, not science.

 

[Gottservant]

Something meant to test your knowledge of scripture, cannot be refuted merely by appealing to a concept of justice (selah)

 

[Targaryen]

Something meant to test your knowledge of scripture, cannot be refuted merely by appealing to a concept of justice (selah)

Nonsensical and quite random.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Something meant to test your knowledge of scripture, cannot be refuted merely by appealing to a concept of justice (selah)

....... what now?

 

[Gottservant]

Nonsensical and quite random.

Unfounded and unhelpful.

Something meant to test your knowledge of scripture (Darwin), is not answered merely by doing justice (repeating scripture, etc.)

Jesus said the snare would come, are you a warning or a way out?

 

[Targaryen]

Unfounded and unhelpful.

Something meant to test your knowledge of scripture (Darwin), is not answered merely by doing justice (repeating scripture, etc.)

Jesus said the snare would come, are you a warning or a way out?

There is no snare in science if you you play at games of literalism as opposed to spiritual truth. How the universe came into being does not discount the spiritual truths in Genesis, nor do the spiritual truths in Genesis act as road blocks to scientific exploration of how that truth formed.

The point you made is obtuse for the sake of sounding profound and comes up short on substance.

 

[Time4Truth]

I believe we can systematically find imperfections and inconsistencies in the various human contrived interpretations of Gods creation.

I cannot find imperfections in Gods word.

Gods Word>anything man offers as an explanation for something the Bible already teaches on..

 

[Targaryen]

I believe we can systematically find imperfections and inconsistencies in the various human contrived interpretations of Gods creation.

I cannot find imperfections in Gods word.

Gods Word>anything man offers as an explanation for something the Bible already teaches on..

Bury your head in the sand then. God's word =/= being ignorant about the world or universe around us.

 

[Time4Truth]

Bury your head in the sand then. God's word =/= being ignorant about the world or universe around us.

I don't find any explanations that refute the literal account in Genesis very convincing.

So I bury my head in Gods word..

Zero evidence Abiogenesis can or has happened. The M/U Experiment merely demonstrated that humans can engineer an environment specifically designed to produce some of the amino acids need to form a protein.

Even if a miracle occurred and a protein was observed, you would need that miracle to repeat itself 600 more times for "life" to even be possible. I don't call that proof, I call that faith, abiogenesis has simply no evidence to support its plausibility.

Evolution would require that the genetic information from the parent stock could manifest in progeny resulting in a new genus. This has never been observed.

Adaptation is not evolution.

There is no unified quantum theory of gravity, which would be required for the multiverse theory to even claim evidence.

All of these hypotheses are refuted within their respective fields.


A house divided cannot stand.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I believe we can systematically find imperfections and inconsistencies in the various human contrived interpretations of Gods creation.

I cannot find imperfections in Gods word.

Gods Word>anything man offers as an explanation for something the Bible already teaches on..

Well you're in for a shock when you actually read the Bible carefully.

So did Jesus heal Bartimaeus on the way into or out of Jericho? Did Paul never go to Jerusalem between his visit three years after his conversion and the Jerusalem Council, or did he also go to bring the famine relief? Did Jesus point out Judas as the traitor before or after instituted the Lord's Supper?

 

[Time4Truth]

Well you're in for a shock when you actually read the Bible carefully.

So did Jesus heal Bartimaeus on the way into or out of Jericho? Did Paul never go to Jerusalem between his visit three years after his conversion and the Jerusalem Council, or did he also go to bring the famine relief? Did Jesus point out Judas as the traitor before or after instituted the Lord's Supper?

Can you support your contention with scripture?

Show me the discrepancies in Gods word that you believe exist.

 

[Targaryen]

Can you support your contention with scripture?

Show me the discrepancies in Gods word that you believe exist.

Appearantly you misunderstood the point, he's challenged you to read these selected sayings and answer them, not the other way round.

 

[Melethiel]

He did. Those are all Scriptural references. Surely you know where to find them and answer the questions.

 

[Time4Truth]

Appearantly you misunderstood the point, he's challenged you to read these selected sayings and answer them, not the other way round.

This isn't my first rodeo..

If he believes the Bible is in error, he can make his case, and Ill refute it.

 

[Targaryen]

This isn't my first rodeo..

If he believes the Bible is in error, he can make his case, and Ill refute it.

If it's not your first rodeo, then why are you reluctant to do the work?

Afraid to be proven faulty?

 

[Time4Truth]

If it's not your first rodeo, then why are you reluctant to do the work?

Afraid to be proven faulty?

Because Im not claiming there is an issue.

Hes essentially trying to set me up, and Im not going to play that way.


If he believes he has solid discrepancies, he can point them out.

 

[Time4Truth]

To illustrate my point, Im going to show even more discrepancies in the bible than he gave.

Id like to hear his contention however.

 

[Gottservant]

There is no snare in science if you you play at games of literalism as opposed to spiritual truth. How the universe came into being does not discount the spiritual truths in Genesis, nor do the spiritual truths in Genesis act as road blocks to scientific exploration of how that truth formed.

The point you made is obtuse for the sake of sounding profound and comes up short on substance.

I understand that you have to defend your honour, but why attack?

Has your old man addicted you to the internet for too long, perhaps?

 

[Time4Truth]

If it's not your first rodeo, then why are you reluctant to do the work?

Afraid to be proven faulty?

He should have brought up whether the soldiers with Paul saw or heard Christ, this very discrepancy shares the same continuity as the others.

Which teaches us something.

But more on that when he makes his case.



Me thinks he googles "bible contradicts itself" and therefore is contending that the Bible is not reliable.


Which is ultimately where Im going with this.. just a heads up..

 

[Targaryen]

Because Im not claiming there is an issue.

Hes essentially trying to set me up, and Im not going to play that way.


If he believes he has solid discrepancies, he can point them out.

And thus you prove to use the same tired argument and lack of proof of any literalist. You are challenged to seek out certain passages already pointed out, but can't be bother to open the bible and read and relate if you found contrary evidence or if you have to back up the point made.

And you are now going to the tired cliche of placing everything back on the poster that raised the point you can't refute with a reasonable approach and using rather tired excuses and reasoning to attempt to extricate yourself from the hole of your own making.

Sorry, but he already provided proof...now it's up to you to actual counter that. If you can't then you lose the argument.

That's debate 101