Super-Continent Pangaea

[joshua 1 9]

I'd agree it was allegory, what confuses me is your interpretation which seems to change on a daily basis.

I am just looking to find the right word to use. The words we use are very important and they have to be exact.

 

[Cearbhall]

Actually the liberals are anti-science. They pervert Science and try to use Counterfeit Science as a tool for their agenda and propaganda. Although I tend to agree with your premise that true science is neither liberal or conservative.

If you'd like to critique the methodology or peer review of a certain research study or discipline, by all means, go on. I'm curious about how you came to this conclusion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you'd like to critique the methodology or peer review of a certain research study or discipline, by all means, go on. I'm curious about how you came to this conclusion.

Oh! I think I know how:
Josh reads actual scientific literature: "But that doesn't match up with what the Bible says at all."
Josh reads creationist scientific literature: "That says the same stuff as the other scientific literature, but it mentions the Bible, so it must be true!"
(paraphrasing of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's what happened)

 

[Loudmouth]

I do not reject true science at all,

You reject the theory of evolution, and you do so because of your religious beliefs.

Of course there are counterfeits and we need to be able to discern what is true and what is not. If your wife were to buy a Gucci purse would she be happy if it turned out to be a counterfeit?

The problem is that you determine what is counterfeit based on what matches your already held religious beliefs.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You reject the theory of evolution, and you do so because of your religious beliefs.

Wrong again.

The problem is that you determine what is counterfeit based on what matches your already held religious beliefs.

Of course that is how you determine a counterfeit by looking at an original.

 

[Loudmouth]

Wrong again.

Then prove me wrong. Give me a scientific reason as to why you reject the theory of evolution.

Of course that is how you determine a counterfeit by looking at an original.

You only assume it is an original. That's the problem.

 

[-57]

You can not change the Bible. The Bible was written over 3500 years ago. Yet the Bible has a fresh and new application for each and every generation. "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever." Isaiah 40:8

Your belief would have us accept that science is to be used to judge the truthfulness of scripture. YOU know the earth is old. YOU know evolutionism happened and created mankind. Your science tells you so...which means Genesis has to be made into an allegorical story. The "scientific" generation with its new application would tell us a dead Christ could not have risen on day 3...but instead is simply allegorical. But, as you said above "You can not change the Bible"...which means sin and death entered by ONE man (Adam) Romans 5:12, 1st Cor 15:21...and you are forced to change "one man" to an evolving population. Your freash and new application is wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your belief would have us accept that science is to be used to judge the truthfulness of scripture. YOU know the earth is old. YOU know evolutionism happened and created mankind. Your science tells you so...

It is the facts that tell us this.

If the stories in your book don't match up to the facts, it isn't the facts that are wrong.

 

[-57]

Then prove me wrong. Give me a scientific reason as to why you reject the theory of evolution.

One of the many reasons was presented in this post. You can reply there as this question is not about pangea.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Genesis has to be made into an allegorical story.

Genesis is an allegorical story. Genesis is also literal truth.

The "scientific" generation with its new application would tell us a dead Christ could not have risen on day 3

Science can not show that Jesus was not resurrected on the third day. Some things we accept on faith and the resurrection is a part of the statement of faith. Science is limited. All of the Bible is absolute truth. Still science is limited in what Science can prove is true.

 

[Loudmouth]

One of the many reasons was presented in this post. You can reply there as this question is not about pangea.

I asked for evidence, not claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

Science can not show that Jesus was not resurrected on the third day. Some things we accept on faith and the resurrection is a part of the statement of faith. Science is limited. All of the Bible is absolute truth. Still science is limited in what Science can prove is true.

"Once nature seemed inexplicable without a nymph in every brook and a dryad in every tree. Even as late as the nineteenth century the design of plants and animals was regarded as visible evidence of a creator. There are still countless things in nature that we cannot explain, but we think we know the principles that govern the way they work. Today for real mystery one has to look to cosmology and elementary particle physics. For those who see no conflict between science and religion, the retreat of religion from the ground occupied by science is nearly complete." (Weinberg, S., "Dreams of a Final Theory," Pantheon: New York NY, 1992, pp.249-250)

 

[florida2]

Why just the focus on Pangaea? What about the other supercontinents that have existed? Are you going to try and shove them into various bible stories as well?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent_cycle

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supercontinents

 

[-57]

Genesis is an allegorical story. Genesis is also literal truth.

Science can not show that Jesus was not resurrected on the third day. Some things we accept on faith and the resurrection is a part of the statement of faith. Science is limited. All of the Bible is absolute truth. Still science is limited in what Science can prove is true.

....and on faith we can understand Adam was a literal historical man created from the dust on day 6. There's becomes no need for an allegorical Genesis.
Then again there is some who claim faith..but feel the need to pick and choose which miracles to believe in.

 

[-57]

I asked for evidence, not claims.

NEXT

 

[Loudmouth]

NEXT

So you don't have any scientific evidence?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

NEXT

You do know that when you do that, you do come across as someone who is really just scared of actually having a genuine scientific discussion?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

EDIT: Gah. Double post.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If you'd like to critique the methodology or peer review of a certain research study or discipline, by all means, go on. I'm curious about how you came to this conclusion.

Really by liberal I mean the atheists. Science shows us that the Bible is accurate and true. SO in order to be an atheist then you have to reject true science.

 

[Cearbhall]

Really by liberal I mean the atheists. Science shows us that the Bible is accurate and true. SO in order to be an atheist then you have to reject true science.

This isn't a response to my question. What led you to your conclusion? With what methodologies or peer review processes do you take issue, and why? I'm genuinely curious.