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.
If you take that as a literal scientific report, then you must believe Eve was a clone of Adam.And let me guess, in Genesis 2, He took all their ribs and made womankind?
No, absolutely not! The truth of scripture is not one bit dependent on the earth being created 6,000 years ago (a number that doesn't appear in the Bible at all).
If you take that as a literal scientific report, then you must believe Eve was a clone of Adam.
To repeat, not every Christian reads Genesis that way.
Ok.I don't take that as a literal scientific report though.
It was a miracle of God, not a process of nature.
Correct.And not every Christian reads Genesis your way either.
In the grand scheme of things, no.And for the record, would it really matter if they did?
Ok.I mean, virtually every single Christian who ever lived, alive today, and will be here tomorrow, believes IN THE BEGINNING GOD.
Yet, despite 100% agreement, it doesn't mean a thing to atheists and unbelievers.
So as far as I'm concerned, scientific consilience and consensus can take a hike.
Show me where I assert that.
Do you know the difference between "apparent age" and "embedded age"?
Which brings more shame?
I "shaming" those who don't agree with me?
Or those who don't agree with me "shaming" me by saying I came from Magilla Gorilla?
Affirmative.
How is It a lie, when It doesn't say how old God created it?
YEC.
Can you support that with Wikipedia and/or the dictionary?
Why are you ignoring me?wow OK so list the things science is all about and studies OTHER than the natural!?
Not my fault if your ideas aren't testable.That is nonsensical. What else can be tested by science that is NOT natural?
You have no desire for discussion and if I present such support you are likely to ignore it yet again, so I don't see why I should waste my time.As soon as you offer support for the claim that science is not limited to the natural, we can look at that. Until we see evidence for that claim it remains your belief and obviously you are trying to push it.
Can you provide a link to this discussion?I noted this with Professor Dave Explains (who was very rude, and I pray for him to seek peace with himself and with those around him, and to calm his tongue) during his debate with Dr. James Tour; I do not understand why a secularist like Dave cannot be kind, respectful, and not demeaning or 'holier than thou' in lieu of contrary opinion.
I don't see why this is required. I'm not talking about AV, or Truthpls, I'm talking about the points they raise.I think a lot more people on CF would be open to secular science if secularists like Dave did not frame creationism as 'illogical,' rather just as a different worldview. In vein of Professor Dave Explains having nothing good to say about Dr. James Tour, I ask you Kylie: what is a good thing you can say about AV, or truthpls, or other creationists who happen to disagree with your proposition?
I could just as easily say that you are misguided. You need to learn that just because someone holds a position different to yours, they are not misguided. To just assume that they are wrong and you are right is, I think, an arrogant position. We must all be open to the idea that our position is wrong. I know that I'm willing to look at evidence that I am wrong, are you?I say this about secularists is that they are wonderful, passionate but misguided people who will help you in a time of need, I cherish them with all my heart as I do all others, they are the most intelligent, logical, and memorable people and I have great respect for that. I have great respect for you too Kylie, as you are all of the previously quoted compliments and more, and even more than that to Our Lord! God bless!
Can be tested - BY the natural. That means it cannot study creation or the supernatural.Why are you ignoring me?
I said science is all about and studies THAT WHICH CAN BE TESTED.
I am right. You are wrong. Science is all about the physical world, the natural. Nothing else.I have told you many times, and you keep saying that science only deals with the natural. You are wrong, you know you are wrong because I have told you many times you are wrong and yet you keep saying it.
You say nothing, interspersed with insultsLike I said, you have no desire for actual discussion.
We can test whether science deals with the natural or not. Easy. Just show us anything that is not natural that science tests??Not my fault if your ideas aren't testable.
It is our time that you waste when all you do is insult and say nothing almost. When you do say something like 'you are wrong by saying science only studies the natural' it is ridiculously false.You have no desire for discussion and if I present such support you are likely to ignore it yet again, so I don't see why I should waste my time.
It's not about Adam. This is about what the Earth is showing us about itself TODAY. To make claim that the Earth is young yet God made it appear old IS deception. That deception would have affected and led astray the whole world of geoscience. Examples of which are geologist, paleontologist, seismologist, meteorologist, volcanologist, hydrologist, oceanographer, and more...all deceived by God.So if Adam had been created as a foetus, trees as seeds, and rocks as the substances geologists say rocks are formed from, that would be OK? I repeat, how is it deceptive for God to create Adam as a fully adult man, trees sufficiently mature to have seeds already in them, and rocks as rocks? We certainly don't get the idea from the bible that (for example) God created Adam as a fully mature man, but failed to reveal that fact, thus tricking people into thinking he was 20 or 30 years old. There was no deception or trickery involved in the elements of creation such as Adam, trees and rocks having an apparent age.
Stop applying your own ignorance to science.Can be tested - BY the natural. That means it cannot study creation or the supernatural.
There's no getting through to you is there? You're determined to believe what you believe, and no amount of discussion is going to change that.I am right. You are wrong. Science is all about the physical world, the natural. Nothing else.
Just observation.You say nothing, interspersed with insults
Science is a process. It is not limited to the natural. It can be applied to ANYTHING that can be testable.We can test whether science deals with the natural or not. Easy. Just show us anything that is not natural that science tests??
Well, since I don't know everything that Dr Tour has said regarding Dave Farina,. I can't comment on whether Dr Tour's claims are lies or not.Just a snippet:
Well, I don't set out to be rude, but sometimes there just isn't a polite way to say, "You are completely wrong and it is painfully obvious to everyone who has even a basic knowledge about this particular subject that you are too ignorant of this topic to have a reasonable discussion regarding it."Yes, but you have to understand that harsh, condemning, or demeaning language can imply a demeaning tone to that individual as well. It was not a criticism but rather just a loving comment.
Working off your study and experience with God and Mary isn't going to be of any help when it comes to science.Well, you have to remember I'm the youngest one in this thread, as I am 18, so I have not had much experience in the world nor the wisdom that many of you have, rather I work off my study and experience with God and Mary; I am always skeptical of my positions, and always look to converse with people of the opposite opinion (but never in bad will, as that goes against my pacifistic spirit), but I am young and perhaps do not have the wisdom
But for me to just say, "You're just misguided," comes across as rude.Absolutely! And you could be right, you could be wrong, we don't know until the end!
Are you suggesting that your religious beliefs have no intellectual basis?Misguided was referring to the personal belief, not the intellectual one.
I find this hard to believe. Are you really indifferent to Christianity? If so, then why are you a Christian?Remember, we are Christians, and scripture tells us that the word of God is written on our hearts, so many of us (literally and exegetically) take our faith to heart. Though I try to look at things that I know and find interest in (all within Christianity) with a tone that is rather intellectual and emotionally indifferent...
Only if you think that Christianity is illogical. Do you think that?...but when it comes to Christianity as a whole, it is very difficult to communicate one-on-one with a Christian by introducing yourself as the "Defeater of Illogic", as our faith is extremely important to us, if not most important, and thus to try to shake that is like trying to chisel the foundation of a castle with a toothpick.
And what exactly does this mean? Does it mean to present myself to believers and just sit there without disagreeing as they tell me their position?It would be better to present yourself in peace as our Lord did, and if they still reject you, then...I would say pray for them but...wish them luck, I guess?
So in what way exactly am I misguided? What have I said that indicates to you that I am misguided?I agree, and I apologize if you took it that way, I was rather speaking on your style of conversation as being relatively misguided in relation to your audience, the Christians.
It would also take this thread off topic.It was just a request to sprinkle a little peace and conciliarity. Always try to make peace wherever you go, much love!
Stop pretending that science uses more than the naturalStop applying your own ignorance to science.
Great so test God. We wait for your results using natural science. By the way, it is a process involving only the natural.Science is a process. It is not limited to the natural. It can be applied to ANYTHING that can be testable.
Name a testable claim (using science) from the bible then?Why, there are testable claims in the Bible! How about we use the scientific method to test those claims?
Once again you cling to this claim despite being told that it is untrue. You show once more that you have no interest in rational discussion.Stop pretending that science uses more than the natural
Great so test God. We wait for your results using natural science. By the way, it is a process involving only the natural.
In Matthew 17:20: "And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."Name a testable claim (using science) from the bible then?
Great so let's see the test? Who was that for and when? Did you think it was for anyone? No. It said 'ye' Believers. Then there is the when, How about in the world to come? Adam had that power you know. Over nature. Jesus also demonstrated it. So, one day believers will do that sort of thing. Now, could this also apply to believers today? Sure, IF they had the faith as Jesus said. So you need a believer with the faith to test anything. I also think this is mostly future because He is growing us up in faith.In Matthew 17:20: "And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."
Jesus himself said that if you have even the smallest amount of faith, then you can pray for a mountain to move from one place to another place, AND IT WILL HAPPEN.
This claim can very easily be tested.
For you to assume anyone had the same faith level as Jesus tells us you are not debating honestly hereI assume you have at least some amount of faith in Jesus? So please pray for Mt Everest to be transported to the middle of the Australian outback. If the Bible's claim is true, then Mt Everest will move, and I will immediately become a Christian. If it does not move, then it has failed the test.
Correct, and the supernatural reasons the mountain would move would not be seen or known by science. They would do as they usually do, piddle around in natural only puddles for reasons. Never able to come to a knowledge of truthOh, and I should point out that since there is absolutely no natural mechanism by which a mountain can move like this in response to prayer, there MUST BE some supernatural mechanism. So, this is testing a SUPERNATURAL CLAIM.
Science not only does not consider the supernatural, it considers the natural the only thing it works with and admits it is all it can test or observe.So you can drop this "science doesn't consider the supernatural" idea. This is a case where a specific supernatural claim is being tested by science, and it proves you wrong.
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?