Aside from your need to throw the word "Darwinist" into every post possible, you are correct Stripey. But using science raises grave questions about Biblical creationism, in fact raises grave questions about the existence of any deity, Christian or otherwise. That may be difficult to reason to if you MUST believe in the accuracy of an ancient group of stories
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Key assumptions about Earth and Radiometric Dating by Scientists are wrong.
- Thread starter WYRose
- Start date
Aside from your need to throw the word "Darwinist" into every post possible, you are correct Stripey. But using science raises grave questions about Biblical creationism, in fact raises grave questions about the existence of any deity, Christian or otherwise. That may be difficult to reason to if you MUST believe in the accuracy of an ancient group of stories
Again, the point is that numbers themselves are not material.
You can have six cows, but the cows themselves are not numbers, they're cows. Each individual cow is not a "1," nor is one of the six cows a "1/6th."
They're cows. Not numbers. The numbers describe them, but are not them.
You appear to be conflating "material" with "natural" (as in, nature), and in doing so conflate "immaterial" with "supernatural", when they describe two different things, though overlapping.
And then you conflated "material" with "natural," and are now restating that science "investigates the material world," implying that it does not investigate the immaterial world, such as mathematics.
Anecdotes are nice an all, but they don't validate your position.
It also investigates the immaterial world, such as mathematics.
Once again, science is NOT limited to the material world, thus it studies the immaterial as well. No one said anything about "supernatural."
That which is immaterial is not necessarily supernatural.
So then you concede that science DOES in fact study that which is immaterial AS WELL AS the material?
Saying it doesn't make it so, Jonah.
Just recently there was a Fathom event for the first part of the third film in the series called "Patterns of Evidence," which is a documentary series presenting the claims made by both sides regarding the evidence for the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt being in the 15th century BC. And if you look at just the coins mentioned in the Bible, ALL of them have been found. And most of the locations in the Bible have been found, including the semitic settlement in Egypt where Jacob and his family settled during the 7 year famine recorded in Genesis. I don't want to gish gallop you here, but there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that what the Bible says is true, just in regards to the history it contains, which means that you don't just get to dismiss the Bible as just "an ancient group of stories" offhand, because it is at best dishonest, and at worst, cowardly and an appeal to the stone.
We can take the discussion on the Exodus to another thread if you like, but the point is that saying it's just "an ancient group of stories" doesn't make it so.
No, I did not state that science studies the immaterial.
Finding coins which support a historical fact from the Bible does not also support the accuracy of 6 day creation, Noah's flood etc.
So, my experience is an anecdote. OK, I'll bite, but then any report of a personal experience of God or a born-again experience is anecdotal and do not lend support to any claim of a god's interaction. Remember that.
Assume you are correct. Again, so what?
So numbers and logic are material things?
How do you study that which is immaterial if science only studies the material?
It DOES, however, lend credibility to the Bible, and if much of the Bible is historically accurate, then the likelihood of the entire Bible being accurate goes up, and that includes Genesis.
Ah, throw science out the door and rely on the cobbled together 2000 year old+ book, got it.
And no response to this about your issue and science studying the immaterial "Assume you are correct. Again, so what?"
Right Divider
Body part
Indeed they do... but they are NOT MATERIAL.... you cannot find logic in matter or energy.
Indeed they do... but you cannot find them by looking at rocks or stars or... anything material.
Oh boy, your scientific paper on that will ROCK the WORLD!
You went right off the deep end there... and you cannot swim.
You just proved nothing, except that you have a world view that you have great faith in.
That is NOT science as a WHOLE, but MATERIAL SCIENCE that you're talking about. You are attempting to "stack the deck".
Any way that you like.
What scientific method would you use to prove what you had for breakfast ten years and three days ago?
Right Divider
Body part
This may have been your dumbest post in this entire thread.
The only reason we have any concept of logic is due to matter and energy. It is all physics and chemistry in your brain. If not, what is it based on?
Why? Give me specifics
Right Divider
Body part
Please feel free to demonstrate this scientifically.
We have already demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that there are immaterial things that are scientifically determined.
Right Divider
Body part
You cannot MATERIALISTICALLY study the SUPERnatural.
You can think logically, or about logic, because the neurons in your brain work when chemical transmitters cross the synapse from one to the other and that signal is passed along the axon by changes in the electrical potential of the cell membranes. Chemistry and physics. Any other mechanism that allows you to think logically?
Please refer me back to where we demonstrated the scientific determination of immaterial things.
well at least we agree on something. How do you study the supernatural then?
It was bound to happen sooner or later. Are you going to retract your disagreement over the fact that science can deal with immaterial issues?
Sounds like you want to throw out ideas before looking at the evidence. :idunno:
Right Divider
Body part
As you were shown, there are immaterial things that are known (like the laws of logic). How did that come to be?
The supernatural is also immaterial and therefore cannot be studied materially. That does NOT mean that they cannot be studied and known.
Like I asked you before: How can you prove, scientifically, what you had for breakfast ten years and three days ago?
As I suggested, those immaterial things came to be because we thought about them, the result of chemistry and physics.
How do you study the supernatural?
Why would I want to prove "scientifically" what I had for breakfast 10 years and 3 days ago? Not really the subject of a scientific investigation. But if I was anal enough to keep a food diary I could. Or if it were the same day my father died and I got that info while eating breakfast I might remember---but that is still chemistry and physics.
Again, what is your point? Science studies the real, the natural world. Not the supernatural. We seem to agree on that. Although you, I suspect, accept the existence of the supernatural which I think is just plain silly. And finally, what is your point? What are you trying to "prove".