The Bible and Nature

[dlamberth]

If you just want to focus on the name, do as you wish. You may call it non-physical, immaterial, not locally real or whatever you like. Nothing changes regarding my point - the physical matter does not exist and the nature of our reality is "the other thing than physical".

Which is much more compatible with the spiritual Creator in whom the creation exists (Acts 17:28 NASB) than with classic materialism.

Basically are you saying that the physical is an illusion?

 

[gmark63]

Honest question: Basically than, conscious awareness is chemistry?

There have been studies using someting called an fMRI (Functional MRI) which tracks activity in the brain. It appears that our "conscious awareness" and, indeed, our "sense of self" can be localized to certain areas of the brain.

There are even studies which find that damage to those centers of the brain can cause the victim to wind up with an altered or missing sense of self.

It's freaky as anything to imagine it, but it could be that our essence, or personal sense of our self is little more than an emergent property of a neuron network wired in just the right way.

So, yeah, chemistry.

 

[gmark63]

You might as well say we should not breath. There is no option. We either believe God is the creator and true or be believe the shadowy schemes and faith based models of 'science'. There is no other choice.

Let's set aside the pejorative language about science for a moment.

Science isn't any single thing...it is a DISCPIPLINE. A way of looking at evidence and data and dispassionately setting aside biases and things that make us "feel good" to get an unvarnished view of the most likely result.

The big advantage science has over religion is that science is made to be "self-correcting" and it is EXPLICITLY done with the notion that nothing is proven 100% perfectly. Religion, on the other hand, usually operates by ex cathedra claims which cannot be questioned.

But even religion has a form of "evolution" in it. Note how all religions evolve over time as they grow older. Judaism gave birth to Christianity and suddenly the God of the OT morphed from a fierce advocate for only one tiny group to loving the entire world. He morphed from handing over towns to be slaughtered by the Israelites to giving up his only begotten son (himself) to die on the cross for ALL of mankind.

Then look at how Christianity itself has evolved. Nowadays no one is stoning adulterers and even gay people are welcomed in many congregations despite God's clear statement that their lives are an abomination in the Old Testament.

Truly religion (and God) evolves to comport with the morals of the current generation of worshippers. And that's a good thing. It's why we no longer have witch burnings.

It also means we have to be understanding that younger religions are still in their "growth phase".

 

[truthpls]

Let's set aside the pejorative language about science for a moment.

That was toned down.

Science isn't any single thing...it is a DISCPIPLINE. A way of looking at evidence and data and dispassionately setting aside biases and things that make us "feel good" to get an unvarnished view of the most likely result.

Nope. Not when it comes to 'science' involving where we came from. That is fairy tales dressed as knowledge and faith based conjecture. When it comes to abortions and nukes and other death dealing products of science, science is very much involved front and center so claiming it is 'dispassionate' has no currency. As for keeping God out of their stories about where the world and life came from, they are very passionate about that!! Religiously so.

The big advantage science has over religion is that science is made to be "self-correcting" and it is EXPLICITLY done with the notion that nothing is proven 100% perfectly.

Science is religion as pointed out in many areas. It is self absorbed, self measuring, measuring itself with and by itself. And no one asks for anything to be 'proven 100%' that is a canard. But when something is UNKNOWN, such as the so called first lifeform and early rise of life, they should take pains to NOT present it as fact or proven!

Religion, on the other hand, usually operates by ex cathedra claims which cannot be questioned.

Try questioning evolution in school and see how that works!

But even religion has a form of "evolution" in it. Note how all religions evolve over time as they grow older. Judaism gave birth to Christianity and suddenly the God of the OT morphed from a fierce advocate for only one tiny group to loving the entire world.

Nope. Jesus gave birth to Christianity. He also gave birth to Israel. Not evolution is any way. Evolution is just a little word and concept people use to omit God!

He morphed from handing over towns to be slaughtered by the Israelites to giving up his only begotten son (himself) to die on the cross for ALL of mankind.

The vile wicked evil dangerous human sacrificing utterly depraved people that Israel had to overcome was a necessary thing to rise up a godly nation is a Satanic world.

Then look at how Christianity itself has evolved. Nowadays no one is stoning adulterers and even gay people are welcomed in many congregations despite God's clear statement that their lives are an abomination in the Old Testament.

Complete strawman argument. Jesus NEVER stoned anyone He stopped people from stoning people! As for ungodly bible departing 'churches' that is not evolution of Christianity but defiance of it.

Truly religion (and God) evolves to comport with the morals of the current generation of worshippers.

Nope. Not in any way is that correct. Believers always honor God's word rather than attack and oppose and defy it.

And that's a good thing. It's why we no longer have witch burnings.

Jesus burned no one. Not yet. However the world is warned that they had better repent or fiery judgment will come. Hallelujah.

It also means we have to be understanding that younger religions are still in their "growth phase".

There is only two religions. God's and the others.

 

[dlamberth]

Evolution is just a little word and concept people use to omit God!

God is very much in the center of evolution. It's through evolution that God creates new life forms.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Science is religion as pointed out in many areas. It is self absorbed, self measuring, measuring itself with and by itself. And no one asks for anything to be 'proven 100%' that is a canard. But when something is UNKNOWN, such as the so called first lifeform and early rise of life, they should take pains to NOT present it as fact or proven!

Science is *not* religion. That is the first thing you need to understand, which you clearly don't. The second thing you need to understand is that calling science a religion (or evolution a religion) is forbidden on this board.

 

[AV1611VET]

God is very much in the center of evolution.

With respect to His will? or in spite of it?

God gets thrust into a lot of things that go against who He is.

And He's coming back soon to set the record straight.

 

[truthpls]

God is very much in the center of evolution. It's through evolution that God creates new life forms.

Not my God, the one in the bible. Sorry. He created and is called the creator. Not the 'sorta helper of evolution'

 

[John Lamb]

This is a quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson and I am not saying God is not real this is just to debate his quote

If you knew nothing about science and you read the Bible the Old testament which in Genesis is an account of nature, and I said to you give me your description of the natural world based only on this you would say the world was created in six days, and that stars are just little points of light much lesser than the Sun that the fact that they can fall out the sky because that's what happens during the revelation During the Revelation one of the signs that the second coming is that the Stars will fall out of the sky and land on Earth, what that means is you don't know what those things are you have no concept of what the actual universe is.

That quote is basically one of the reason many people are leaving the church, Christiasns are actually taking everything in the bible litterally. Its a book filled with wisdom but the writers were ignorant of just how complex the universe is, geology, astronomy, archeology, biology, those four
sciences debunk much of the bible. A star falling onto the earth...its rediculous. I do not believe in god because of the bible, I belive in God because the universe is so complex that there has to be a designer. I am not calling god ignorant, but the writers were
ignorant of the reality of the universe.

Richard Dawkins handed him his atheist award. What is this quote? Is he an observational scientist, does he know went on 50 years ago let alone 6000?

 

[truthpls]

Science is *not* religion.

Science is religion. End of story. Like it or not. Not negotiable. You can believe what you like. I will too.

That is the first thing you need to understand, which you clearly don't.

The first thing you need to comprehend is that your opinion is one little opinion. Nothing more.

The second thing you need to understand is that calling science a religion (or evolution a religion) is forbidden on this board.

No problem. I will avoid telling the truth as much as lieth in me on that score.

 

[gmark63]

That was toned down.

Demonizing people who do work one does not understand is not necessarily a virtue.

Nope. Not when it comes to 'science' involving where we came from. That is fairy tales dressed as knowledge and faith based conjecture. When it comes to abortions and nukes and other death dealing products of science, science is very much involved front and center so claiming it is 'dispassionate' has no currency. As for keeping God out of their stories about where the world and life came from, they are very passionate about that!! Religiously so.

Sounds like you really don't like science much. Ironic since you typed it on a computer, but we can ignore that bit.

Science is religion as pointed out in many areas. It is self absorbed, self measuring, measuring itself with and by itself.

That makes religion sound pretty awful. Not sure that was your plan.

And no one asks for anything to be 'proven 100%' that is a canard. But when something is UNKNOWN, such as the so called first lifeform and early rise of life, they should take pains to NOT present it as fact or proven!

You don't understand the technical details about whatever you think you are talking about here. No one has ever said anything was "proven" around the first life forms. It is still an area of investigation and hypothesis.

If you wish to speak against something, make sure you understand what you are speaking against. Otherwise it calls into question any conclusions you draw.

 

[truthpls]

Demonizing people who do work one does not understand is not necessarily a virtue.

I never mentioned people. I mentioned science. Misrepresenting what is said is no virtue.

Sounds like you really don't like science much. Ironic since you typed it on a computer, but we can ignore that bit.

I take the good with the bad. I recognize each though.

That makes religion sound pretty awful. Not sure that was your plan.

I am not a religious guy. I always cheered Jesus and the apostles on, rather than the religious folks.

You don't understand the technical details about whatever you think you are talking about here.

You don't seem to know what I was talking about there. Unless you can be specific?

No one has ever said anything was "proven" around the first life forms.

The poster referred to some supposed idea people have that science was supposed to be about absolute proof. If you consider the stories of 'science' about where life came from to be science, then you agree with me, that of course it is not proven. (or even a sound idea)

It is still an area of investigation and hypothesis.

I would describe it a little differently. But let's leave that if we can.

If you wish to speak against something, make sure you understand what you are speaking against.

I do. Lies are worthy to be spoken against. Also dressing up beliefs as something else is worthy of criticism and awareness.

Otherwise it calls into question any conclusions you draw.

The conclusion about God being a dirty liar is the conclusion called into question here. If God were not the creator of the universe and stars and man and the world, then He is a dirty liar.

 

[truthpls]

My book closely parallels the subject of this thread.

View attachment 341900

View attachment 341901

View attachment 341902

Interesting. Can you give us a key point from the book so we can get a little sample?

 

[dlamberth]

Darwinian evolution is a fraud, a tautology devoid of modern science.
I have been assembling evidence of this for decades here:
A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

Life forms changing and evolving over time is Life. It can't be separated from Life.
All science does is to open a window into the process.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Darwinian evolution is a fraud, a tautology devoid of modern science.
I have been assembling evidence of this for decades here:
A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

That link was quite the list of bad and recycled arguments. It also just kept going on and on without improvement.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT


This thread is closed for review and clean up. The Statement of Purpose for this forum has this:

​

Do not flame other viewpoints. Christianity and creationism cannot be called a myth or fairytales, and evolution should not be called pseudoscience nor should evolution or science be called a religion.​

​

General Apologetics: This is not a forum where Christians are asked to defend their faith against objections and criticism from non-believers.​

​

This is not the place to debate whether God exists or not. ​

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

This thread is off topic to the forum it is in. This is not a Christian Apologetics forum.

MOD HAT OFF​