• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

573 Excellent


About Bonky

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,312 profile views
  1. In the context of our discussion when I mentioned "creator God" I was referring to the theistic God that created the Universe and interacts with mankind. If you think about it, our Universe *could* be created but created accidentally or unintentionally. Or the Universe could have been created by a being that doesn't care or concern itself with our plight. Also the quote you left from George Wald may be inaccurate. I don't have access to that journal [not paying to get it], but I've encountered two different sites that claim the quote is not to be found. They stated instead that the journal actually says... Again I don't have access to the journal, so I can't confirm.
  2. No, I was stating that in your examples where early scientific claims were off base, it wasn't the Bible that came to the rescue it was more science or data. This is the self correcting nature of science. We don't get all the answers ahead of time, we have to work towards a better understanding of the subject matter. I don't see how this addresses my statement that I see no evidence for the supernatural. Can you provide a good resource for me to check out this prediction? I'd be looking for something that clearly states what the original prediction was actually predicting and clearly what came to pass to fullfill that.
  3. I don't disagree. I don't think ANYBODY has a clear answer to the nature [understanding] of our Cosmos and/or the biological life within it. All I'm saying is that this doesn't give us the right to declare that the answer must be some creator God because it couldn't be anything else. We don't know enough to say that. I am no biologist or physicist, but when I read about evolution, it makes more sense to me than do the counter claims of special creation.
  4. I notice in your examples it was more science that corrected itself, not the Bible correcting science. Science has no assurance that we can answer all questions or explore all possibilities, I'm very ok with that. This tells us nothing about whether the contents are true or if so to what degree. What assurance do I have that there aren't any exaggerations, tall tales, legends etc that were written down? See my point above. And I don't see a correlation with what the Bible proclaims and what I perceive in reality. I don't see an inkling of evidence that the supernatural exists. I don't even see Christians really closely obeying/listening to the words of Christ. In America we can't wait to bomb our enemies, christians divorce pretty regularly etc. I'm not seeing great words of wisdom that are handed down to us that we couldn't figure out ourselves. I am very open however to new information or new insights that I don't currently have.
  5. You would with many floods over millions of years. A global flood isn't the only explanation for why we have many fossils. Wouldn't land animals, by the millions get washed out into the ocean? Shouldn't we find land animal fossils frequently in ocean sediment? If all animals were created together and then a couple thousand years later a global flood happens the fossil record should be a jumbled mess of every type of creature. That's not what we find.
  6. Then what is the point of harping on about how we're not directly observing a global flood? You seem to be trying to protect it by merely stating that it happened in the past so the claim can't bear any scrutiny or investigation. How did you ever become a Christian if you feel this way about claims of the past?
  7. It has all the markings of what a religion is. It has sacred texts [that can't be questioned], practices/rituals, holy places, a messiah etc.
  8. We would have both of these things w/o a global flood as well. Where are all the terrestrial animal fossils on the ocean sediment?? Why don't we find all kinds of modern mammals at the bottom of the strata??
  9. We observe floods today, we can see what they do to the soil. To suggest that we would have no idea what a major global flood would leave behind is absurd. The claim that "God said so" is what I'm challenging.
  10. They are physical events that happened, but only the global flood would leave us evidence that we can investigate thousands of years later. That's the difference. An event like that would leave evidence that is absolutely undeniable, not something people try to build a case for by appealing to "maybes" and "possibilities".
  11. I'm willing to bet you are completely accepting of "mans standards" for reason and logic when you are approached with various other claims, especially those that might impact your finances or career. This measure of faith you speak of also applies to Muslims who otherwise may have rejected Islam but they were encouraged/pressured into believing anyway. If we want, we can just give ourselves over to whatever religion is popular in our culture. I want to have a firm understanding of what I'm buying into so that I can rationally defend it.
  12. Therein lies my comfort with science more so than religion. Science can often [not always] get closer to what isn't true leaving us a better picture of what might be true. Religion has no interest in uncertainty, it declares what is true and any questioning coming from outside that worldview is often met with ad hominem comments. I'm not necessarily referring to anyone here, I mean in my experience in general.
  13. From my perspective I don't ask what science can back up the virgin birth, resurrection or other miracles; I ask what are good reasons for believing these claims. Science may or may not be involved. In the case of a global flood claim, science can help weigh in.
  14. And in my experience when dealing with religious claims I can try to show you the hurricane is naturally occurring you could simply retort "It just looks that way, the turtle is invisible and he's causing the winds and conditions". Regarding your first statement about God building houses, we know a lot more about how houses are built than about the nature of the existence of a Universe and the nature/existence of organic life. I don't object to those who believe God created life, I only object to those who say "The only explanation is that God created life".
  15. It's not the job of scientists to show "proof to the contrary", it's the job of apologists to show evidence in support. It hasn't been demonstrated because it's not a claim to begin with.