Toggle sidebar

Man 99.9% Sure He Found Noah's Ark

It's On A Slab said:
That is the very antithesis of science.

Which is why "creation science" is a contradiction in terms.
Click to expand...

Well then you reject evolution science since it does the same thing.

All science does what "creation science" does. It has certain conclusions and based on them it moves forward. "Evolution science" does the same.

I assume you simply disagree with the conclusion that the Bible is the Word of God. That is your prerogative. I believe that it is the Word of God and trust whatever statements it makes regarding the physical universe. From that platform of truth or set of principles I move forward.
 
It is interesting how much archeological evidence collaborates with Biblical stories, especially those which coincide with major battles, cities, races, and empires -- Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian. While it may not confirm the existence of God, it certainly gives credence to the stories of Israel's history. It may lead one to feel that their testimony gives plausibility to the miracles that contributed to their existence.
 
92tide said:
sorry to point this out, but that is not even close to being correct.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. You don't rediscover or prove everything everytime. There are many accepted scientific rules or principles: first law of thermodynamics, etc. I simply consider Biblical statements, including those related to science, to be axiomatic. That is a conclusion I've come to after investigation and experience.

My comment about "evolution science" was simply a reply to the statement that "creation science" has a conclusion that they set out to prove. I know that some in "evolution science" have set out to prove that the Bible is not true or that God does not exist. They've stated it.
 
BamaInBham said:
Well then you reject evolution science since it does the same thing.

All science does what "creation science" does. It has certain conclusions and based on them it moves forward. "Evolution science" does the same.

I assume you simply disagree with the conclusion that the Bible is the Word of God. That is your prerogative. I believe that it is the Word of God and trust whatever statements it makes regarding the physical universe. From that platform of truth or set of principles I move forward.
Click to expand...

im assuming you mean the king james version of god's word.
 
BamaInBham said:
Sure it is. You don't rediscover or prove everything everytime. There are many accepted scientific rules or principles: first law of thermodynamics, etc. I simply consider Biblical statements, including those related to science, to be axiomatic. That is a conclusion I've come to after investigation and experience.

My comment about "evolution science" was simply a reply to the statement that "creation science" has a conclusion that they set out to prove. I know that some in "evolution science" have set out to prove that the Bible is not true or that God does not exist. They've stated it.
Click to expand...

i'm not getting drawn into the religion vs. science debate again because it has been done to death on this forum. creation "science" (and its offshoot, ID) is not science.
 
92tide said:
i'm not getting drawn into the religion vs. science debate again because it has been done to death on this forum. creation "science" (and its offshoot, ID) is not science.
Click to expand...

Is too.

Is not.

Is too.

Hippie.
 
92tide said:
... creation "science" (and its offshoot, ID) is not science.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The only debate, IMO, is whether or not we feel that we can really trust our ability to observe the universe around us effectively enough to "know" anything.

Of course, scientists would tell us that they don't pretend to know, and that they are perfectly willing to change their point of view when the evidence points in another direction, but that just isn't the way that it works. Once a human being makes up his/her mind about an issue, there is not sufficient evidence in the universe to change that opinion - and this includes scientists.

So, the real question is, where do we put our faith? In ourselves (science), in God, or some mixture of the two? I find myself the last category.
 
NYBamaFan said:
Agreed. The only debate, IMO, is whether or not we feel that we can really trust our ability to observe the universe around us effectively enough to "know" anything.

Of course, scientists would tell us that they don't pretend to know, and that they are perfectly willing to change their point of view when the evidence points in another direction, but that just isn't the way that it works. Once a human being makes up his/her mind about an issue, there is not sufficient evidence in the universe to change that opinion - and this includes scientists.

So, the real question is, where do we put our faith? In ourselves (science), in God, or some mixture of the two? I find myself the last category.
Click to expand...

"The Universe is not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose."

- J. B. S. Haldane
 
NYBamaFan said:
Once a human being makes up his/her mind about an issue, there is not sufficient evidence in the universe to change that opinion - and this includes scientists.
Click to expand...

a scientist, by definition, must have the ability to change his mind according to experimental data. that is why i believe there needs to be more "scientists" practicing science.
 
92tide said:
i'm not getting drawn into the religion vs. science debate again because it has been done to death on this forum. creation "science" (and its offshoot, ID) is not science.
Click to expand...

We simply disagree about "creation science and "evolution science". (I should have substituted supposition for conclusion in a couple of previous posts in this thread.) But we do agree that the subject has been beaten to death. I'm happy to pass.

NYBamaFan said:
Agreed. The only debate, IMO, is whether or not we feel that we can really trust our ability to observe the universe around us effectively enough to "know" anything.
Click to expand...

The Bible says there are plenty of things that you can know. God gave man reason and plenty of evidence to come to some conclusions - very important ones. He expects it.

"...that which is known about God is evident withn them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Emphasis mine)

gmart74 said:
a scientist, by definition, must have the ability to change his mind according to experimental data. that is why i believe there needs to be more "scientists" practicing science.
Click to expand...

Could not agree more. IMO, it will not happen.
 
RhodeIslandRed said:
It is interesting how much archeological evidence collaborates with Biblical stories, especially those which coincide with major battles, cities, races, and empires -- Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian. While it may not confirm the existence of God, it certainly gives credence to the stories of Israel's history. It may lead one to feel that their testimony gives plausibility to the miracles that contributed to their existence.
Click to expand...

This post apparently got lost, but makes a great point. "I have preconceived notions going in, therefore it is not true". That is how most scientists operate and have been. Scientists should start out and continue to be open-minded 'til death. Theories and hypotheses get shot down all the time. I'm not sure what the dispute is on "scientists" not really being scientists in many cases. Even Stephen Hawking egotistically quipped something about believing in a God, since Stephen couldn't figure out the universe. More and more scientists are looking into creation, as opposed to something coming from nothing, because there are compelling arguments. And obviously, they are open-minded.

Back on topic. With so many examples of flood stories all across the globe, with many civilizations that never spoke to one another, how can that be just brushed off? It's one account that filtered down through descendents, and became corrupted based on generations becoming further and further away from God, and finally not knowing him like Noah did (therefore attributing to other god(s). There is scientific evidence of a flood, not several, though. I guess that should be ignored as well.
 
bamahippie said:
This post apparently got lost, but makes a great point. "I have preconceived notions going in, therefore it is not true". That is how most scientists operate and have been. Scientists should start out and continue to be open-minded 'til death. Theories and hypotheses get shot down all the time. I'm not sure what the dispute is on "scientists" not really being scientists in many cases. Even Stephen Hawking egotistically quipped something about believing in a God, since Stephen couldn't figure out the universe. More and more scientists are looking into creation, as opposed to something coming from nothing, because there are compelling arguments. And obviously, they are open-minded.

Back on topic. With so many examples of flood stories all across the globe, with many civilizations that never spoke to one another, how can that be just brushed off? It's one account that filtered down through descendents, and became corrupted based on generations becoming further and further away from God, and finally not knowing him like Noah did (therefore attributing to other god(s). There is scientific evidence of a flood, not several, though. I guess that should be ignored as well.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is brushing off the flood myth. Only the "99.9% sure" business.

Hippie. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back