What if you seek and don't find?

[bhsmte]

Is this the same bible that states that plants were created before the sun? We know that plants cannot exist without sunlight. The bible is scientifically inaccurate here.



A circular argument is a fallacy. "The bible says its true therefore it is true. The bible says intelligence comes from God, we are intelligent, therefore God" This explains nothing and is a circular argument.

Circular is correct.

But, it is all they got.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Is this the same bible that states that plants were created before the sun? We know that plants cannot exist without sunlight. The bible is scientifically inaccurate here.

How do you know? There was light and we don't know what this light provided to the earth and that which lived upon it at that time.

A circular argument is a fallacy. "The bible says its true therefore it is true. The bible says intelligence comes from God, we are intelligent, therefore God" This explains nothing and is a circular argument.

Yes, just as the natural world can have only a natural explanation as only the natural world exists and can only be discovered by employing methodological naturalism.

Now it is not that the Bible saying it is true making it true, but the Bible making claims that can be then investigated and either confirmed or falsified or be determined unknown.[/Quote][/QUOTE]

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

How do you know? There was light and we don't know what this light provided to the earth and that which lived upon it at that time.

Now you're committing the fallacy of begging the question. We know the sun is required for plants to perform photosynthesis but the bible says the sun was created after plants. This is impossible. If you have to beg the question for a different light source, your argument is unconvincing. I have no good reason to believe you unless you can substantiate your claims.

Now it is not that the Bible saying it is true making it true, but the Bible making claims that can be then investigated and either confirmed or falsified or be determined unknown.

We know the claim that species were individually created is wrong. The existence of a God is unfalsifiable. Do you think you have a good reason to believe something if it is unfalsifiable?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Now you're committing the fallacy of begging the question. We know the sun is required for plants to perform photosynthesis but the bible says the sun was created after plants. This is impossible. If you have to beg the question for a different light source, your argument is unconvincing. I have no good reason to believe you unless you can substantiate your claims.

Yes, photosynthesis is required for modern plants to live, or for another source such as growing lights and such. There is work being done right now that has been successful in taking a gene and manipulating it which has plants surviving without sunlight and little if any water. Now I am not saying that we have support for plants being present before the sun but we didn't have support for plants being present 700 million years ago until just recently either. We didn't have evidence for anything liquid during the formation of the universe until recently either and yet we do now. Science seems to more and more align with the Bible the more we find out.

We know the claim that species were individually created is wrong. The existence of a God is unfalsifiable. Do you think you have a good reason to believe something if it is unfalsifiable?

The Bible doesn't say that species were individually created. So your next statement makes no sense, in the first sentence you claim that species were individually created and that it was wrong. If the Bible said this you would be right and it could be falsified. Yet in the next sentence you claim it is unfalsifiable. It seems you can't decide.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

There is work being done right now that has been successful in taking a gene and manipulating it which has plants surviving without sunlight and little if any water.

And this demonstrates God exists, how? Could you cite one research paper that suggests something along the lines of "And this demonstrates the bible is correct" A Muslim would make the same argument about the Koran. Sounds to me like science making progress and religion goes back to twist up their scripture to fit the data. It reminds me that Galileo was placed under house arrest because of his heliocentric model. The church felt that didn't fit well with scripture. This also happened with evolution but evolution is accepted now by most Christians. Seems to me religion often gets it dead wrong when it comes to investigation about the natural world. But what is found in Genesis isn't surprising to me. It's exactly what I would expect to be written by people who didn't know where the sun went at night.

Science seems to more and more align with the Bible the more we find out.

Oh really, provide several examples. Is the moon a source of light like the bible says or does it reflect light?

The Bible doesn't say that species were individually created.

Genesis 1:20-25. These verses are describing species being created. We know species did not just pop into existence in their current form. We know these claims are demonstrably false.

So your next statement makes no sense, in the first sentence you claim that species were individually created and that it was wrong. If the Bible said this you would be right and it could be falsified. Yet in the next sentence you claim it is unfalsifiable. It seems you can't decide.

What I meant that the existence of a God is not falsified because Genesis is not literal, it just falsifies the claims that species were individually created. If you take Genesis literally, your version of God is likely wrong but it doesn't disprove God.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The Bible explains that the universe had a beginning. We have evidence that confirms this.

We have evidence confirming that the universe began to expand 13.82 billion years ago and that this expansion continues still, but I somehow doubt that that's what you mean by "beginning."

The Bible explains intelligence comes from the intelligence of God, we are testament to that.

So where does God's intelligence come from?

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, photosynthesis is required for modern plants to live, or for another source such as growing lights and such. There is work being done right now that has been successful in taking a gene and manipulating it which has plants surviving without sunlight and little if any water. Now I am not saying that we have support for plants being present before the sun but we didn't have support for plants being present 700 million years ago until just recently either. We didn't have evidence for anything liquid during the formation of the universe until recently either and yet we do now. Science seems to more and more align with the Bible the more we find out.



The Bible doesn't say that species were individually created. So your next statement makes no sense, in the first sentence you claim that species were individually created and that it was wrong. If the Bible said this you would be right and it could be falsified. Yet in the next sentence you claim it is unfalsifiable. It seems you can't decide.

Bit the Bible does state the species were crated separately. There is not one single reference to one species being crated from another. Genesis claims all the animals appeared all at once, not in stages. Also, I have every reason to believe that the P source, author of Gen. 1, had in mind a literal 24-hour day. Also, the Bible clearly starts that creation is over, finished, done with. Evolution means that creation is continuous.

 

[Oncedeceived]

We have evidence confirming that the universe began to expand 13.82 billion years ago and that this expansion continues still, but I somehow doubt that that's what you mean by "beginning."

So where does God's intelligence come from?

Are you claiming that the universe did not have a beginning? Yes, it expanded and is expanding which fits with what the Bible says about the heavens being stretched. There was no space, no energy, no time and no matter and then there was. That is a beginning.

God is intelligence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Bit the Bible does state the species were crated separately. There is not one single reference to one species being crated from another. Genesis claims all the animals appeared all at once, not in stages. Also, I have every reason to believe that the P source, author of Gen. 1, had in mind a literal 24-hour day. Also, the Bible clearly starts that creation is over, finished, done with. Evolution means that creation is continuous.

I beg to differ. There is nothing that states that each species was created separately. After their kind, means just that. They came after their kind. What kind came before...? How much time was involved in that 24 hour day? WE know that a day to God is not the same as it is to us. Yes, all that was created then is all there is now. Nothing that exists today or even thousands of years ago existed when God created the universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And this demonstrates God exists, how? Could you cite one research paper that suggests something along the lines of "And this demonstrates the bible is correct" A Muslim would make the same argument about the Koran. Sounds to me like science making progress and religion goes back to twist up their scripture to fit the data. It reminds me that Galileo was placed under house arrest because of his heliocentric model. The church felt that didn't fit well with scripture. This also happened with evolution but evolution is accepted now by most Christians. Seems to me religion often gets it dead wrong when it comes to investigation about the natural world. But what is found in Genesis isn't surprising to me. It's exactly what I would expect to be written by people who didn't know where the sun went at night.

Modern Science wouldn't exist if it were not for the Christian worldview. If it were not for religion we would not have the scientific model in use today.

Oh really, provide several examples. Is the moon a source of light like the bible says or does it reflect light?

Its a light source is it not?

Here is several:

‘. . though the fact that the air has weight is here so distantly announced [in Job], philosophers never recognized the fact until within comparatively a recent period, and then it was proclaimed by them as a great discovery. Nevertheless, the fact was set forth as distinctly in the book of nature as it is in the book of revelation; for the infant, in availing itself of atmospherical pressure to draw milk from its mother’s breast, unconsciously proclaimed it.’ Matthew Maury.

Maury also realized from the Bible that there should be paths in the sea from Psalms 8 and was the founder of marine navigation providing proof of the paths.

The Bible claims the heavens were stretched out and we now have evidence that they are expanding or stretching out.

The Bible claims that there are springs on the oceans floor and there was no way that Job would have had that knowledge and it took technology to prove that to be true.

The Bible also claims that there were mountains in the oceans and we now know that is true.

Genesis 1:20-25. These verses are describing species being created. We know species did not just pop into existence in their current form. We know these claims are demonstrably false.

Genesis doesn't say they popped into existence.

What I meant that the existence of a God is not falsified because Genesis is not literal, it just falsifies the claims that species were individually created. If you take Genesis literally, your version of God is likely wrong but it doesn't disprove God.

They were not individually created and it doesn't say they were.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Modern Science wouldn't exist if it were not for the Christian worldview.

And this makes Christianity true, how? We wouldn't have algebra if it wasn't for Islam, therefore Islam is true. See how nonsensical your argument is?

If it were not for religion we would not have the scientific model in use today.

Then why has religion been so opposed to so many scientific discoveries that threaten their dogma but then twist scripture to fit new discoveries and claim they knew it all along? Is the cure for AIDS in the bible? Or will we not see that until a cure is found? Does dipping a bird in blood cure leprosy like it is described in Leviticus 14? Or should we go with the modern medicine treatment of antibiotics?

Its a light source is it not?

No, the moon is not a light source. It does not emit light. It reflects light. The bible seems to think it's a source for light. It's not.

The Bible claims the heavens were stretched out and we now have evidence that they are expanding or stretching out.

Does it give the explanation as to why it is expanding? No. If you think the bible fully understands the expansion of the universe, then you should be able to tell us what dark energy is and how it works. You'd win a Nobel Prize. Do you have an explanation? Basically all you have is a vague description and you're projecting it to mean what you want it to mean.

The Bible claims that there are springs on the oceans floor and there was no way that Job would have had that knowledge and it took technology to prove that to be true.

"Springs of the sea" is pretty vague with no description of what they are and what they do. Could you offer an explanation using the bible? Or are you just projecting what you want it to mean?

Is this earth immovable like the bible describes or is it rotating on it's axis and orbiting the sun?

Genesis doesn't say they popped into existence.

They were not individually created and it doesn't say they were.

You should probably reread Genesis

 

[Davian]

Having no other scientific options doesn't mean that the only one is correct or has evidence for it.

Agreed.

I asked if you had any evidence as I was unaware of any that provided evidence for non-living matter becoming living matter.

But before that, you said, "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter". Is this you retracting this claim?

Providing physical evidence for a non-physical Being

What do you mean, "non-physical"? Is not your position that "life" can only come from "life"? How can the physical come from the non-physical, what ever that means?

compared to physical evidence for a physical process seems obvious would require different means in which to determine it.

What would those means be?

 

[Davian]

Do you think if I thought He was real I would?

Yes, but the question I asked was, if you had felt that God was fictional, do you think would you have made that request?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Are you claiming that the universe did not have a beginning?

In what sense are you using the word "beginning"?

Yes, it expanded and is expanding which fits with what the Bible says about the heavens being stretched.

I think you're stretching the Bible to fit the science.

There was no space, no energy, no time and no matter and then there was. That is a beginning.

If that is what you mean by "beginning," then we don't know whether the universe "began."

God is intelligence.

If our intelligence requires an explanation, then why doesn't God's?

 

[Oncedeceived]

And this makes Christianity true, how? We wouldn't have algebra if it wasn't for Islam, therefore Islam is true. See how nonsensical your argument is?

First of all the reason I presented the origins of modern science is due to the fact that you seem to have a scientific view of the world and I wanted to point out that the view you hold is centered upon the Christian worldview. Regardless, you might wish to look into who was responsible for Algebra, it might surprise you if you actually research it...and no I'm not claiming it too came from the Bible. The truth of Christianity rests in many areas including science.

Then why has religion been so opposed to so many scientific discoveries that threaten their dogma but then twist scripture to fit new discoveries and claim they knew it all along? Is the cure for AIDS in the bible? Or will we not see that until a cure is found? Does dipping a bird in blood cure leprosy like it is described in Leviticus 14? Or should we go with the modern medicine treatment of antibiotics?

Well, I think that the religion is not for or against any scientific discoveries. I think there are those in some organized religions that claim the label Christianity can and do sometimes feel threatened by scientific findings but overall religion and science have been hand in hand.

Leviticus 14 does not say that dipping a bird in blood would cure leprosy. This was a cleansing after one was healed from Leprosy. For someone who feels they are well versed on the Bible it seems you haven't really looked into all those anti-Bible sites to see if they are using correct information.

No, the moon is not a light source. It does not emit light. It reflects light. The bible seems to think it's a source for light. It's not.

Does reflected light not illuminate the night? Is it not a source of light in the darkness of the night? The fact that the light is reflected does not change that it is a fact that the moon gives us light in the darkness of night.

Does it give the explanation as to why it is expanding? No. If you think the bible fully understands the expansion of the universe, then you should be able to tell us what dark energy is and how it works. You'd win a Nobel Prize. Do you have an explanation? Basically all you have is a vague description and you're projecting it to mean what you want it to mean.

Actually it does, it says: He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.
Jeremiah 51:15
Now if scientists had taken this information as factual it wouldn't have taken them as long as it did to determine the universe is expanding.

In the Bible we are told that Jesus Himself holds the universe together. An invisible force that will continue to hold it together until the end of days.

"Springs of the sea" is pretty vague with no description of what they are and what they do. Could you offer an explanation using the bible? Or are you just projecting what you want it to mean?

Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth? This is the passage. No one knew when this was written that in the very depth of the seas that there springs that fed into them. It wasn't until we could actually search the depths that they were found.

Is this earth immovable like the bible describes or is it rotating on it's axis and orbiting the sun?

Has the earth even moved from its fixed place in the universe in relation to us or the sun? We know that if it were not fixed where it is in our universe we would not exist.

You should probably reread Genesis

I think you should. Please provide where it says the organisms listed in the narrative that they are being created separately.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

First of all the reason I presented the origins of modern science is due to the fact that you seem to have a scientific view of the world and I wanted to point out that the view you hold is centered upon the Christian worldview.

... but it's not... You really have to distort the history of science in order to claim that it is.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Agreed.

So I have to question why you said what you said?

But before that, you said, "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter". Is this you retracting this claim?

No. You nor anyone else has provided evidence that non-living matter could ever become living matter. Your links provide no evidence that non-living matter to non-living matter could ever become living matter. Now if you or anyone else has evidence of non-living matter EVER becoming living matter or non-living matter having EVER became living matter or that non-living matter that has become more non-living matter and then becoming living matter then present it or if you or anyone else having evidence that.

What do you mean, "non-physical"? Is not your position that "life" can only come from "life"? How can the physical come from the non-physical, what ever that means?

This is what I said. "Providing physical evidence for a non-physical Being compared to physical evidence for a physical process seems obvious would require different means in which to determine it." To ask for physical evidence for a non-physical Being can not be done in the same way as we find physical evidence to determine a physical process.

[/Quote]What would those means be?[/QUOTE]It requires circumstantial evidence as there is a component that is non-physical. In the same way we have had to determine the existence of particles that are invisible to us, we use other evidences to support their existence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

... but it's not... You really have to distort the history of science in order to claim that it is.

That is simply false.

Edited to add: http://worldview3.50webs.com/scientmethod.html

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, but the question I asked was, if you had felt that God was fictional, do you think would you have made that request?

I think Athee was spot on in his response to you about this.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In what sense are you using the word "beginning"?

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328474.400-why-physicists-cant-avoid-a-creation-event/

I think you're stretching the Bible to fit the science.

Demonstrate how I have stretched it to fit science.

If that is what you mean by "beginning," then we don't know whether the universe "began."

See above.

If our intelligence requires an explanation, then why doesn't God's?

Why would it?[/Quote][/QUOTE]