You, Leov, and Ken Ham all do look alike, don't you?
Tom
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!
You, Leov, and Ken Ham all do look alike, don't you?
From nature of course. Nature is all there is and all there needs to be.It is all good but you did not answer my main question, Natural Law, where it came from?
The devil is an imaginary creature. It is better to believe in unicorns.Devil is in details.
Is that a reference to yourself?
Yes.Is that a reference to yourself?
So are you on a mission to show evidence that science is incorrect? All science or just the science you do not like?Yes.
Read the post but I still do not understand. What does that post have to do with being a science denier. The essence of science is that it can be accepted by anyone of any religious belief because it is not religious. It is based on what is observable and subject to changes in ideas as evidence increases. It is not set on a stone tablet or written long ago with words that cannot be challenged. In fact it thrives with challenge. An no one is here to bully someone else - only to state their views. Certainly there are plenty of people who disagree with my posts but I do not feel bullied. So why are you and enemy of science?
I’m an enemy of what people are calling “science,” when they use it as a reason for calling some beliefs “unscientific,” and calling some people “science deniers.” I’m an enemy of people calling what they think they know “science.” Just like I’m an enemy of people calling what they think they know “what God says.”Read the post but I still do not understand. What does that post have to do with being a science denier. The essence of science is that it can be accepted by anyone of any religious belief because it is not religious. It is based on what is observable and subject to changes in ideas as evidence increases. It is not set on a stone tablet or written long ago with words that cannot be challenged. In fact it thrives with challenge. An no one is here to bully someone else - only to state their views. Certainly there are plenty of people who disagree with my posts but I do not feel bullied. So why are you and enemy of science?
But you do realize that science is actually quantifiable, right? There is an actual way to SHOW a particular claim is based on science or is scientifically sound.I’m an enemy of what people are calling “science,” when they use it as a reason for calling some beliefs “unscientific,” and calling some people “science deniers.” I’m an enemy of people calling what they think they know “science.” Just like I’m an enemy of people calling what they think they know “what God says.”
No. You can define “scientific” however you want to and go around pinning the labels “scientific” and “unscientific” on everything in sight. I won’t try to stop you. Have a merry time, and don’t forget to buy a T-shirt. I’m just saying that if you do that in forum debating, you won’t be contributing to anyone’s understanding, and you’ll be promoting scorn and contempt for all science, including the most beneficial kinds. If that’s what you want to do, help yourself, knock yourself out.But you do realize that science is actually quantifiable, right? There is an actual way to SHOW a particular claim is based on science or is scientifically sound.
For example:
1) "Force equals mass times acceleration" is a scientifically sound statement.
2) "Force equals pixies times magical dragons" is not a scientifically sound statement.
Are you saying that we cannot claim that 1) is scientific and 2) is not?
But that's not what is being done. The labels aren't arbitrary - there's an actual criteria to something being scientific or scientifically sound. That is, it needs to be testable and quantifiable. A claim which has been tested and quantified is scientific, a claim which has not been tested or quantified isn't. Force equals mass times acceleration is scientific, dragons kidnapped my imaginary niece is not scientific.No. You can define “scientific” however you want to and go around pinning the labels “scientific” and “unscientific” on everything in sight. I won’t try to stop you.
But this is a debate about science. Therefore, dismissing a claim which is claimed to be scientific, or claims to contradict science, but actually isn't or doesn't is perfectly relevant.I’m just saying that if you do that in forum debating, you won’t be contributing to anyone’s understanding, and you’ll be promoting scorn and contempt for all science, including the most beneficial kinds. If that’s what you want to do, help yourself, knock yourself out.
Everything "out there"
it comes back later and says God created the sun and such,
but that's repeating. And remember, this was oral tradition
way longer than it was written text.
First the heavens, and the earth.
It doesn't go into things alien to the people hearing this -
such as M-theory hyperspace membranes triggering big
bangs which create space and time.
It doesn't go into the dust accretion in a solar disk, or the
snowball earth or the lava earth.
It's as if Genesis is saying, "Look, the first time you could
have stood upon the earth, this is what it looked like."
But... it does say things which would have been odd to the
listeners - God "commanded" the earth to bring forth life.
Yes, as of 2018 the consensus is that life came from the
land - either in wet clay, warm ponds, volcanic porous
rock... whatever. But on the land. And then the sea.
Yes, you can say God IS gravity, and God IS evolution - God commands and the universe creates.
It's not meant to be a text book. It's not meant to be a history
book. But sometimes, just sometimes, you get glimpses of
things people are not supposed to have known.
You have to think outside the box.
God created the heaven... and the earth.
and the earth was dark, wet and sterile.
WE AREN'T GIVEN EVERY STEP IN THE SEQUENCE.
We are given a point in time
What point?
A point you can comprehend.
No hyper dimensional muti-universes. These people
thought a "planet" was a wandering star, and the horizon
was the end of the earth.
And the bible is a theological book. It didn't set out to
disrupt people's cultural notions. As Galileo said, the
bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens
go.
So, dark, wet and sterile. No ground beneath you. You
can't see the sun. AND THAT'S A SCIENTIFIC FACT.
As Galileo said, the bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.
So, dark, wet and sterile. No ground beneath you. You
can't see the sun. AND THAT'S A SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Your understanding is off. In the very early history of the Earth, it would not have been "dark set and serile". Wet came later.
Evolution in the bible is dealt with under Noah's Arc. In the story of Noah's Ark there is a selection process, where two of each animal, male and female, are selected. These will become the source of furthering evolution of species. This is very similar to Darwin, or should I say, Darwin says a similar thing, but in a slightly different way to suit those times.
The main difference between the two theories, is the theory in Genesis uses a God that has a plan.
While abiogenesis theory uses a God of chance and gambling to created whatever conditions you think you will need.
The first God uses the logic within the principles of physical creation to form life; laws of science extrapolated in a logical way.
The second God buys lottery tickets hoping to for life to appear.
He has no plan, but depends on luck.
He is the little brother of the first God; Fredo.
In terms of humans, created in the image of God, the atheist attempt to mimic a God of gambling, while the religious people attempt to mimic a God of planning and reason. It makes no sense that the Atheist, who claim to be rational, ignore the God of planning and reason, and prefer a gambling God approach. They worship the God Fredo.
The bible gives us a hint about the approach of God, the elder, for the formation of life.
2Peter 3:5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.
Water is the most abundant solid material of the universe; ice, and therefore is the main gravity source for the formation of new stars. Water is the second most abundant molecule in the universe behind only H2; hydrogen gas. Hydrogen and Oxygen are the two most abundant atoms in the universe. Water is the wild card molecule of the universe with over 70 anomalous properties.
Water is the logical and planning foundation needed to create life. Fred science assumers any solvent can work, even though nobody has ever proven, life in the lab, with or without water. This pseudo science assumes Fredo is all powerful, and he can do this, if we he has enough time and enough dice. The US Government needs to stop funding all Fredo science, due to separation of church and state.