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.
OK then what other books in the bible can be ignored as not being Strictly Literal?
The account in genesis was passed on to Abraham from eye witness accounts of the flood from the survivors of the ark (probably Noah who was still alive at time of Abraham) (flood 1600 years since creation from Adam to Seth, Enos to Noah).
And speaking of the literal method, Jesus interpreted the Scriptures literally.
Astridhere: what study and what scientists are you talking about? I'm awaiting an answer..
I have provided data of 290myo whale bones. Stop pretending I have not provided substance to my claim. It is you lot that can do nothing more that hide behind denial.
No, because what's there is actually based on evidence and research. The bible is not. It could've been written by anyone, no one really knows.
I am not talking here just about the bible and biblical creation. I am talking about science that you refuse to defend
I have yet to see one (1) instance where different dating methods provide significantly different results.
An unscientific opinion on your part .
Literal evolution is not provable and it defies the empirical evidence.
Mine is scientific
So by default, if nothing else, I win this debate.
It's different sure but not diametrically opposed. Aren't we all made up of the same building blocks as the rest of creation? As dad suggested when I asked him this same question "You're made of stars?"
You must mean the logical proof of how science works. If you understand natural deduction and logic this might be a little more helpful:
(1) Γ (Given)
(2) B -> !A (Assumption)
(1) B (B is in Γ
(1,2) !A (-> Elimination on 2 given B)
(1) A (A is in Γ
(1,2) A & !A (& Introduction on !A and A)
() Contradiction
When? When speaking in parables?
You mean like this?:
Jhn 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
Jhn 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
Jhn 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
Jhn 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
Jhn 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
Jhn 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Heresy!!!
Well actually it is perfectly well defined logic, trust me I'm a logician.Not correct...
Well it's not so much to do with science as to how you are trying to disprove science, you are setting up your assumption ln. 2 then finding evidence to go with it ln. 3 and then totally disregarding the people who come along with a better understanding of the evidence base and pointing out that your assumption doesn't hold, ln 4ffWhat on earth does that have to do with science?
Science proceeds from facts to laws to theories by a difficult-to-define process called induction. Induction includes pattern-recognition, brainstorming, tinkering, creative guessing and that elusive "insight". It is not a process of deductive logic.
Uses and Misuses of Logic.
Well actually it is perfectly well defined logic, trust me I'm a logician.
Well it's not so much to do with science as to how you are trying to disprove science, you are setting up your assumption ln. 2 then finding evidence to go with it ln. 3 and then totally disregarding the people who come along with a better understanding of the evidence base and pointing out that your assumption doesn't hold, ln 4ff
I see day 3 proceeded by day 4.
Your literal interpretation doesn't allow you to see "heavens" as "sun."
Day 4 specifically references the sun, however.
Do you recognize this inconsistency?
No it doesnt Are you arguing with my citation?
I only get this way when I am talking to the hard headed
No, evolution is not "diametrically opposed" to creation. And disproving one does not prove the other. I went through this with Astrid.
Say you've got some body of evidence in science, let's call it 'Γ' and you decide that regardless of what is actually in Γ that B implies that A isn't in there, because you know that B is in there and you don't know or care about whether A is or isn't in there. So because of your decision that B implies that A isn't in there, you assume that A isn't actually in Γ. If you find out later that A actually is in Γ this means that your assumption that B means there is no A is a false assumption, it tells us no new information about B it doesn't even mean we need to remove B from our body of evidence, just that our assumption was wrong.
I'll quote my original post, you are quite correct that inductive reasoning is how we do science, my original point was that your reasoning is deductive and doesn't actually do what you want it to. Sorry about any confusion that I perpetrated, I got confused myself
OK can we just stop and define our terms here, from my diction I'd define creation as the universe, however you are defining it as the literalistic reading of the Bible known as creationism. From my understanding the quoted excerpt above is a complete contradiction.My point is that evolution if true excludes creation, if creation is true it excludes evolution.
This is a misunderstanding of Physics in general, quantum physics atm cannot be linked in our understanding to the general theory of relativity, this is the problem in physics.Diametrically opposed theories can not exist at the same time (except in quantum physics).
Can we look at that link you posted again? Let's talk through that about evolution. So what are the facts? We have observed speciation, ring species, genetic mutations and the ability to clade organisms together based on similarities, yes or no?So if evolution claims the high ground of scientific proof (it often does) my first task is to show inconsistencies of those proofs. This is true of any hypothesis or theory and is accepted in the scientific community for degrading a hypothesis or theory.
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?