One Book

[Enoch2021]

 

 

If we used the Bible as our sole science (and history) book, where would be as a species?  (FYI, there are no wrong answers).

What makes you think that science didn't start with the Bible and grow from there......  

 

 

Because science is about observing the natural world and letting the observation lead you to a conclusion.  Observing nature does not lead you to the bible.  Looking at a road cut of sedimentary rock that is in line with the normal geologic fossil column leads you to evolution, and refutes a global flood as portrayed in the bible. 

 

 

Moreover:

 

Are you saying Evolution is true via observing a road cut of sedimentary rock that is in line with the normal geologic fossil column?

 

Can you please Define evolution?...specifically if you don't mind.

 

Thanks

[other one]

[Enoch2021]

I took this picture of the Grand Canyon several years ago.   The Ranger that was giving a talk at this site said something very interesting.  After giving us the story about millions of years as she was instructed to do she then smiled and said something to the effect of, "Now for the rest of the story."

 

to paraphrase a five minute talk that I could never remember the details she pointed out that if you look closely the Grand Canyon was created in two steps

  The large wide part of the canyon was created in an extremely short period of time as it had to drain all the water from the entire water shed of the Colorado River.    People who she had access to were saying that the smaller canyon that is eaten into the soft rock and dirt at the bottom of the canyon should have taken no more than 4 to 5 thousand years to form.

Kind of fits into the scheme of things I read in Genesis.

 

 

Breath-taking picture!!  I visited some years ago...just awesome.  Interesting what the Park Ranger said.  Another thing that's very interesting is that for the Colorado River to carve the Canyon it would of had to flow uphill for like 1000 meters or something like that.

 

Thanks for the Pic!!

[jerryR34]

Can anyone provide evidence of God instead of attacking accepted science?  My roadcut example required no preconceived notions, but built upon observation.  Can someone explain how the bible explains my example?

[other one]

Can anyone provide evidence of God instead of attacking accepted science?  My roadcut example required no preconceived notions, but built upon observation.  Can someone explain how the bible explains my example?

Let me just say this in short form.......   I have friends who were associated with the Smithsonian Institute and they have told me for years that if anything is found that would go against the theory of evolution, it simply disappears......   He/she has seen things that were taken there and destroyed......     so I personally can't trust scientists to tell me the truth.

 

I have done interviews with people who disagree with evolution and they can't even get their writings published.....  worse their careers are usually destroyed.

 

God has never lied to me and he has kept me from certain death on more than one occasion  however I personally can't trust scientists to tell me the truth.

[Enoch2021]

Can anyone provide evidence of God instead of attacking accepted science?  My roadcut example required no preconceived notions, but built upon observation.  Can someone explain how the bible explains my example?

 

ahhh yes, the old switcheroo.  OK

 

".......accepted science?  My roadcut example required no preconceived notions, but built upon observation."

 

"Science is Built upon the "Scientific Method" (7 Steps), in short it has to be:

 

Observable

Testable/Measurable

Repeatable

Falsifiable

 

'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

 

 

In your above example, you can't even get to STEP 1.  You just Observed.....you didn't directly Observe a Phenomenon. Therefore...what are you gonna TEST??

 

 

"Can anyone provide evidence of God"

 

1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT "Pillar of Science"): The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT "Pillar of Science"): The amount of energy available for work is running out,  and the Universe is moving inexorably to "Maximum Entropy" or Heat Death.

If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe.

You have only three options:

1. The Universe has always existed (in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics);

2. The Universe created itself (in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics); or

3. The Universe was Created by GOD.

 

 

Furthermore;

 

So with (No GOD and just evolution) you believe in strict Materialism or "Naturalistic Processes" for How we are here, Correct? But Information (Thoughts, Knowledge, Truth) are Supernatural by definition.

 

Information is immaterial and does not emanate from matter---atoms/molecules, ink, chalk, ect contain ZERO Information intrinsically:

 

"The meaning of the message will not be found in the physics and chemistry of the paper and ink" -Roger Sperry (neurobiologist and Nobel laureate)

 

I would go further and ask the fine Dr....What Message?  Follow?

 

So I ask you, How do you know that everything you posted on this Thread is TRUTH?

 

By proxy of your beliefs/World View, Thoughts/then Truth are nothing more than the result of Chemical Reactions.  How do you get Truth from that??

 

Shake up a can of Pepsi and a can of Sprite then open them up.....which one is True/False??

What you're offering us here, based on your World View, is basically Brain Fizz.  How do you know it's TRUTH based on your World View??  Do you expect me to believe it?

 

Information>>>> Knowledge>>>>>> Truth are Supernatural by definition and the Author is Supernatural.....My GOD and Savior Jesus Christ.  If you wish, you can adopt the World View in which you are standing ....it's absolutely FREE, PAID IN FULL!!

 

He Loves you more than you can Fathom!!!  For the very hairs on your head are all numbered! 

 

Humble yourself before him and he will lift you up.

 

Hope you find the Truth

[nebula]

If we used the Bible as our sole science (and history) book, where would be as a species?  (FYI, there are no wrong answers).

 

An odd question. The Bible was never meant to be a science book.

 

I mean, it talks about people planting crops, but provides only scant information is given on how they planted the crops. That is because the writing is not about how to plant crops but using what people know about planting crops to teach a lesson.

 

In any event though, you should not let your perceptions on how Christians handle how the earth and how humans came to be keep you away from encountering Jesus.

[Tristen]

I don’t think any informed person seriously suggests that the Bible become our sole source of scientific knowledge.

 

Prior to the late 1700s, most scientific research was conducted within the Biblical-theistic faith framework. Around that time, some scientists (i.e. James Hutton and contemporaries) proposed and alternate faith framework – now called naturalism (the concept that only natural explanations can qualify as truth). Since then, naturalism has become the default faith perspective from which most scientific endeavours are conducted.

 

As a Christian (and creationists), I merely propose that the Biblical account of reality continues to provide a logically valid framework from within which legitimate science can be conducted.

 

 

Opinions and speculations regarding where we would be as a species depend largely upon which faith perspective we choose to prefer.

[Guest]

I don’t think any informed person seriously suggests that the Bible become our sole source of scientific knowledge.

 

Prior to the late 1700s, most scientific research was conducted within the Biblical-theistic faith framework. Around that time, some scientists (i.e. James Hutton and contemporaries) proposed and alternate faith framework – now called naturalism (the concept that only natural explanations can qualify as truth). Since then, naturalism has become the default faith perspective from which most scientific endeavors are conducted.

 

As a Christian (and creationist), I merely propose that the Biblical account of reality continues to provide a logically valid framework from within which legitimate science can be conducted.

 

Opinions and speculations regarding where we would be as a species depend largely upon which faith perspective we choose to prefer.

 

 

Scientism

 

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Romans 1:20-22

 

Is The Mind Killer

 

The rich and poor meet together: the LORD is the maker of them all. A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished. Proverbs 22:2-3

[Guest]

If we used the Bible as our sole science (and history) book, where would be as a species?  (FYI, there are no wrong answers).

 

What makes you think that science didn't start with the Bible and grow from there......  

 

Because science is about observing the natural world and letting the observation lead you to a conclusion.  Observing nature does not lead you to the bible.  Looking at a road cut of sedimentary rock that is in line with the normal geologic fossil column leads you to evolution, and refutes a global flood as portrayed in the bible. 

 

"normal geologic fossil column leads you to evolution, and refutes a global flood as portrayed in the bible."

 

Is that a fact?     You've got a BIG PROBLEM:  Polystrate Fossils....

 

Derek Ager, Emeritus Professor of Geology, University College of Swansea:

 

'If one estimates the total thickness of the British Coal Measures as about 1000 m, laid down in about 10 million years, then, assuming a constant rate of sedimentation, it would have taken 100,000 years to bury a tree 10 m high, which is ridiculous.

 

Alternatively, if a 10 m tree were buried in 10 years, that would mean 1000 km in a million years or 10 000 km in 10 million years (i.e. the duration of the coal measures). This is equally ridiculous and we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and at other times there were long breaks in sedimentation, though it looks both uniform and continuous'.

Ager, D.V., The New Catastrophism, Cambridge University Press, p. 49, 1993.

 

The BEST argument I've come across is "Polystrate Fossils" is not a "Scientific Term".

 

Take a Gander @ these.... The link won't post.  Type "Polystrate Fossils" into any search engine.  Please explain how these Fossilized Trees Penetrate (alleged) Millions of years of Strata?

 

A Big Flood......Maybe?

 

 

http://www.icr.org/article/4950/

 

He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11

 

http://www.icr.org/article/445/