Walkntune
Well-Known Member
Looking for some opinions on whether some of these are lucky guesses or why they may or may not be true?
Biblical evidences for Science
Biblical evidences for Science
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
intertubes said:
They're not lucky guesses. As Alceste pointed out, they're just a product of confirmation bias.Looking for some opinions on whether some of these are lucky guesses or why they may or may not be true?
Biblical evidences for Science
Rom.1:20 explains Atoms. Tells us that things seen are made from the invisible things. Heb.11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed (made to fit put in order) by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. The things which are seen are made of things not seen. This was not known until modern science discovered the invisible atoms. Invisible to the eye microscopic structures, The Encyclopedia describes it as a unit of matter, the smallest unit of an element, having all the characteristics of that element and consisting of a dense, central, positively charged nucleus surrounded by a system of electrons. The entire structure has an approximate diameter of 10-8 centimeter and characteristically remains undivided in chemical reactions except for limited removal, transfer, or exchange of certain electrons. Atoms cannot be seen using optical microscopes, they are much smaller than the wavelengths of visible light. Seen by imaging techniques such as electron microscopes, scanning tunneling microscopes, and atomic force microscopes,
Looking for some opinions on whether some of these are lucky guesses or why they may or may not be true?
Biblical evidences for Science
OK I will start with this,
Rom.1:20 bla bla bla bla some dumb fool's nonsense which is too painfully nonsensical to even bother reading. Heb.11:3 bla bla bla more of the same
Now of course we know it doesn't mention anything about quantum physics but how do you interpret the scriptures talking about things being created from invisible things?
Alceste just showed us this verse. How on Earth does a person read it and conclude that it "explains atoms", or even "that things seen are made from the invisible things"?OK I will start with this,
Rom.1:20 explains Atoms. Tells us that things seen are made from the invisible things.
Alceste just showed us this verse. How on Earth does a person read it and conclude that it "explains atoms", or even "that things seen are made from the invisible things"?
The verse says that it's talking about God's invisible nature, not the fact that you can't see some piece of matter because it's really small.
Rom 1:20
20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Heb 11:13
13These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
I don't see anything scientific in there. You?
What do you suppose this arch-force is Einstein is speaking of?He says we may call it God but for you who don't believe in God what is it?Einstein nodded: he was a good listener. After a pause he said, "The cosmic man must be restored, the whole man who is made in the image and likeness of the arch-force, which you may call God.
The dogma crap you wrote above was nothing more than an evasion of the question of me asking what was being implied.OK I will start with this,
Rom.1:20 bla bla bla bla some dumb fool's nonsense which is too painfully nonsensical to even bother reading. Heb.11:3 bla bla bla more of the same
Actually I see the same scientific creative force of nature that Tesla and Einstein saw in creation even though Einsten did not equate it with a personal God but the God of Spinoza.
Chi.What do you suppose this arch-force is Einstein is speaking of?He says we may call it God but for you who don't believe in God what is it?
You're asking how we explain the science in the Bible, but not giving us any of the verses you claim contain scientific observations. Instead you're giving us a bunch of bull from somebody else's website. I've only snipped out the bull and supplied the verses we're supposed to be discussing so that we can discuss them.The dogma crap you wrote above was nothing more than an evasion of the question of me asking what was being implied.
You have the wrong scripture . Its Hebrews 11:3 not 13.
I was wondering where your scripture came from?
Or it could mean that God's raw materials are invisible in the same way that angels or pixies are invisible.You have the wrong scripture . Its Hebrews 11:3 not 13.
I was wondering where your scripture came from?
Hebrews 11:3 (New International Version)
3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
This still may only mean God created everything out of nothing so I will give you this one and pull another I find interesting.
Or it could mean that God's raw materials are invisible in the same way that angels or pixies are invisible.
Maybe you can share some knowledge that you actually added to the scientific community and have not learned riding on someones coat tail.Seriously, I'm sure you can come up with your own biased sample and give us your own unsupportable interpretations without having to resort to simply copying and pasting somebody else's work. That's like sloppy thinking on steroids. I'm interested in THAT discussion. Not talking about nonsense on that web site.
Job 38:16 tells us there are springs in the sea (this was not known until 1913 when they found underground rivers)
Job 38:16 (King James Version)
16Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?
Maybe you can share some knowledge that you actually added to the scientific community and have not learned riding on someones coat tail.
Being hostile to me doesn't make your argument any more convincing.