teddyv Posted November 30, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 4,265 Content Per Day: 2.91 Reputation: 2,302 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/03/2020 Status: Offline Share Posted November 30, 2020 3 minutes ago, kingdombrat said: Let's examine your last paragraph for a moment here. What if God specifically did pass down via the Holy Spirit concerning He took literal dirt from the surface of the Earth, He spat into it, then as a presumable clay object (since the term for body has been used as clay on numerous occasions throughout the Holy Bible) God formed a human being including every organ and vital system, then He Breathed life into this clay human vessel and it became a life form similar to our own bodies. Let's presume this description is factually 100% as God intended it to be for our understanding. How would Evolution even relate? How could Evolution even be presented as a possible representation to this Creation Story? Science would be literally out in left field not even remotely close to anything factual. If the formed from dust, spat into it, and then Breathed life to bring forth life is 100% as God did it as we read in Genesis 1 & 2, then Evolution is just a myth! And it is not only a myth, but a myth bought and sold by those claiming to be far superior in knowledge than the average human being. I've read where Science has an X-Man factor. If so, there is a lot of make belief going on within Science. It's possible. But it does invoke the supernatural which scientific inquiry is not equipped to handle - therefore it is out of the purview of science. Modern science is always going to look for the naturalistic means. Many do make the mistake of applying scientific theories into the realm of philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alive Posted November 30, 2020 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 22 Topic Count: 195 Topics Per Day: 0.11 Content Count: 11,054 Content Per Day: 6.50 Reputation: 9,018 Days Won: 36 Joined: 09/12/2019 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/09/1956 Share Posted November 30, 2020 7 minutes ago, Josheb said: Proof? In a way, yes. It is a logical necessity once we acknowledge the Bible is NOT a physics text book and we err when we make to be so. It's not a textbook on Accounting. It's not a textbook on biology. It's not a textbook on engineering, or psychology, or chemistry. It speaks in some way about all things but it is not a textbook on these specific fields of inquiry. The Bible is about God/Christ from beginning to end, not biological evolution or the how of cosmological origin. Stephen Meyer does a good job of making those points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kingdombrat Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, teddyv said: It's possible. But it does invoke the supernatural which scientific inquiry is not equipped to handle - therefore it is out of the purview of science. Modern science is always going to look for the naturalistic means. Many do make the mistake of applying scientific theories into the realm of philosophy. Agreed, and why I put forth my question like I did. I know there is a distinction between faith and what can be observed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kingdombrat Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, Josheb said: I encourage everyone to read Nancy Pearcey's "The Soul of Science". Alive, you've been reading Schaeffer, so you're aware of how this false dichotomy between revelation and science, fact and truth, and the "upper" and "lower" tiers got started. Personally, I read about physics and cosmology often and have yet to read anything that isn't understandable within Biblical theism and that includes sources as severe as Lawrence Krauss! He's gota pair of lectures an hour or two in length each when done I found nothing but his personal biases inconsistent with scripture. More accessible everyman tomes like Michio Kaku's books (especially "Hyperspace") or Brian Greene's, Carlo Rovelli, or James Trefil are completely consistent with Christian views of creation. They call it the "universe"; we call it "creation". Theists and non-theists look at exactly the same evidence and simply draw differing conclusions. . Are you discussing older Krauss or more recent. He once was a viable member who believed the "Bang" was caused by energy, the Laws, Singularity, Shrinking/Expanding/Heat/Freezing. After the K.O.B.E. Expedition, he flipped his lid and became a proponent of the "Bang" just happened, and as result we now have the components that originally was thought to have [created] the "Bang." Don't get me wrong, he is still an atheist, but now he is fudging with the likes of "Soup Theory" and to a degree of "Intelligent Design." Just not God being the Intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 1, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 1, 2020 3 hours ago, kingdombrat said: There are discoveries we make all of the time where we are not only fascinated about how could such primitive thinking people accomplish as such let alone create it in their minds, [/quote] Science has quite a list of those. Eratosthenes measuring the circumference of the Earth before Christ was born, Aristarchus of Samos determining that the Earth revolved around a much larger sun, and so on. So, it makes me wonder just how advance has Science really become. To the ancients, much of what we take for granted from science would look like magic. But it's understandable; we based it on the science that went on before us. As Newton observed, he could see farther than people before him because he was standing on the shoulders of giants. "Primitive thinking people" were no less intelligent than we are. but that even technically speaking we could not achieve the same results with today's minds and tech. Can't think of one. What do you have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 1, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 1, 2020 2 hours ago, kingdombrat said: I've read where Science believes in an X-Man factor. If so, there is a lot of make belief going on within Science. If pigs had wings, they could fly. But they don't, of course. Show us where science believes there's an "X-Man factor", whatever that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kingdombrat Posted December 1, 2020 Share Posted December 1, 2020 1 hour ago, The Barbarian said: PREVIEW 16:49 10 Oldest Technologies Scientists Still Can't Explain YouTube · BRIGHT SIDE Aug 19, 2018 PREVIEW 14:16 Oldest Technologies Scientists Still Can't Explain YouTube · Inforado Nov 30, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kingdombrat Posted December 1, 2020 Share Posted December 1, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, The Barbarian said: If pigs had wings, they could fly. But they don't, of course. Show us where science believes there's an "X-Man factor", whatever that is. There's a study that many with higher IQ's also tend to suffer from Psychological Disorders. I'm not trying to dig deep into this because I am not trying to shine a bad light upon Science. But I read where Mathematicians/Engineers tend to suffer from forms of Autism. And because they were odd in comparison to the other members of Society, they looked at their intelligence as having special powers. It's just an article I read once and found some hidden truths to it. Edited December 1, 2020 by kingdombrat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 1, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 1, 2020 1 hour ago, kingdombrat said: 10 Oldest Technologies Scientists Still Can't Explain All of those use technologies well-known today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 1, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 1, 2020 Show us where science believes there's an "X-Man factor", whatever that is. 1 hour ago, kingdombrat said: There's a study that many with higher IQ's also tend to suffer from Psychological Disorders. So no evidence that scientists believe in an X-ray factory? Nothing at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts