Photonic
Ad astra!
And this sort of absolute assertion is different from javajo's how?
Other than the fact that javajo was thoughtful enough to preface with "I believe".
wa:do
Let me put it another way.
Let's measure it.
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!
And this sort of absolute assertion is different from javajo's how?
Other than the fact that javajo was thoughtful enough to preface with "I believe".
wa:do
Ok ok. I believe he walked on water not ice.Ice is water.
Yup, just the one, jk. Just my belief, Jesus said not one jot or tittle would pass, Peter said Jesus is the same forever, and in the OT it says God does not change and his words are preserved forever. I think we have God's Word today.So one verse is enough then.... as long as that one verse hasn't changed you're still good.
Why bother with the rest of the book?
Ok. I had more biology in High School and College than physics or chemistry. But that was a long time ago. All my studies are on my own now and I gave away some of my favorite books and my videos are so old, they are for vcr instead of dvd.I do not think science means what you think it means.
wa:do
if we were dealing with operational or process science we could measure it, but we are dealing with origins or historical science.Let me put it another way. Let's measure it.
Perception and reality are two different things...
if we were dealing with operational or process science we could measure it, but we are dealing with origins or historical science.
I don't need billions of years for creation as you do for evolution. I believe the flood was global as God promised never to destroy the earth again by water, as there are still local floods today.
the uneducated do not have the capability to cherry pick science properly
Let me put it another way.
Let's measure it.
Yes it does. Operational science measures and conducts experiments on things in the present so we have computers and cars and stuff. Historical science deals with the past and is limited cuz we can't do experiments on past events. Observations we make now are used to make inferences about the past. There is some guesswork, and the further in the past, the more inferences and chance for error. This is where all the conflicts come, not with operational science, which btw, started with Christians in Europe. Depending on one's beliefs, two people can look at something and reach a different conclusion as to how it came to be.It doesn't work that way.
Yes it does. Operational science measures and conducts experiments on things in the present so we have computers and cars and stuff. Historical science deals with the past and is limited cuz we can't do experiments on past events. Observations we make now are used to make inferences about the past. There is some guesswork, and the further in the past, the more inferences and chance for error. This is where all the conflicts come, not with operational science, which btw, started with Christians in Europe. Depending on one's beliefs, two people can look at something and reach a different conclusion as to how it came to be.
Thanks for your explanation. From what I have read on some of the different methods of dating like radiometric, there are many problems with it, more than I care to type. Ice-core samples, tree rings and sedimentary layering, depending on how you look at them, agree with the Flood and YET just fine for me. I am open minded so I will check out Bryson. I am not dogmatic on the science end of things but I do believe the Bible is God's Word and trustworthy and in the end God will show us just how he did all this. Peace!I hate to nitpick, as I think you are doing a wonderful job of explaining your views patiently and coherently in the face of some pretty harsh interrogation, but we don't need billions of years to make evolution true. The evidence is unambiguous and absolutely crystal clear that the earth is billions of years old. Even if you reject radiometric data (which is unwise, since scientists use a dozen different isotopes to measure geological time, each with a different half-life that overlaps one or more of the others - it isn't just carbon), there is still evidence of an old earth in the form of ice core samples, tree rings, sedimentary layering and the entire field of physics.
IOW, we don't believe the earth is ancient because it has to be for evolution to make any sense. On the contrary, Darwin himself said a big problem with his theory was that, at the time, the earth was only thought to be a few hundred thousand years old, even by the most liberal estimates. We have since discovered - quite separately - that the earth is indeed much older than we thought at Darwin's time. That piece of the puzzle has become part of the evidence for evolution because Darwin's theory predicted exactly such a discovery (as well as DNA, incidentally). This is one of the clearest examples a layman can get of how the scientific method works and why it is so persuasive.
Have you ever read any Bill Bryson? He's a very funny travel writer, but he wrote a wonderful,fascinating book on the history of science and scientists: A Short History of Everything.
If you are interested in a non-confrontational, entertaining read about how the world's most famous and influential scientists made their discoveries, I can't recommend it highly enough. I would read it again and again - even buy it new rather than getting it out of the library or a second hand shop - and that's saying a lot.
Thanks for your explanation. From what I have read on some of the different methods of dating like radiometric, there are many problems with it, more than I care to type. Ice-core samples, tree rings and sedimentary layering, depending on how you look at them, agree with the Flood and YET just fine for me. I am open minded so I will check out Bryson. I am not dogmatic on the science end of things but I do believe the Bible is God's Word and trustworthy and in the end God will show us just how he did all this. Peace!
It's a good story.Ok ok. I believe he walked on water not ice.
It's too bad no one can agree what they mean.Yup, just the one, jk. Just my belief, Jesus said not one jot or tittle would pass, Peter said Jesus is the same forever, and in the OT it says God does not change and his words are preserved forever. I think we have God's Word today.
I could suggest a few good resources if you want to brush up on your Biology.Ok. I had more biology in High School and College than physics or chemistry. But that was a long time ago. All my studies are on my own now and I gave away some of my favorite books and my videos are so old, they are for vcr instead of dvd.
Friends, I'm not inclined to answer each and every one of your posts. I believe the Bible. I believe in Noah's Flood and that it was global. I believe complexity is a problem for you, its not for me. I was taught evolution from grade school through college. I don't believe it anymore, sorry. If I'm wrong and there is no God who has loved me and taken care of me all these years, oh well. Peace to you all and I wish you well in your studies and journeys.
Friends, I'm not inclined to answer each and every one of your posts. I believe the Bible. I believe in Noah's Flood and that it was global. I believe complexity is a problem for you, its not for me. I was taught evolution from grade school through college. I don't believe it anymore, sorry. If I'm wrong and there is no God who has loved me and taken care of me all these years, oh well. Peace to you all and I wish you well in your studies and journeys.