Free For all - Open Discussions and DebatesI am confusedthis is ITSELF a statement of faith. it's not a scientific statement. it's merely a statement ABOUT science; and a false one at that. this is likened to Stephen Jay Gould's attempt at the divorce of faith and science (NOMA: Non-Overlapping Magesteria). or David Hume's statement that if a statement or volume (Bible for instance or book of philosophy or metaphysics) is not mathematical or cannot be scientifically measured or emperically verified then "commit it then to the flames for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." the problem with that statement is that it destroys itself. because that very statement is neither mathematical nor scientific. basically his test fails its own test. which is the same error that you have repeated over, and over and over again. what about the origins of life? extremely complex. and has proven to be basically impossible naturalistically. it's not what we don't know in this area, but what we DO know. what we've found out in the area of biogenesis and abiogenesis have put serious doubt against any idea of life coming about by chance. this puzzle that you speak of doesn't cohere with reality. it's like saying that although humans can't fly like superman, if we try hard enough to solve the puzzle, we may learn how someday. some things just CAN'T be done, no matter how hard we try, or how many alleged pieces we find to the "puzzle". of course you're being "fanciful". even some of the most educated biologists in the world would say that abiogenesis is indeed "fanciful". it's usually the uneducated in such fields that ever make such grand claims. the elite aren't foolish enough to do that. it's like the baby rattlesnake that can't control its own venom. untrained and impetuous. AHA! so it IS possible to be a Christian and not be "influenced" as you claim. what is it that makes these people so "objective" according to you, and us so "influenced"? and before you answer that, why don't you try reading reading some of Newton's writings. he most definitely WAS influenced by the Bible. the fact that none of these scientists ever came up with any ideas of evolution demonstrates that they were influenced. and Christianity and the Bible were FAR more respectable in academic circles then, than they are today within acedemia. we would EXPECT it to be leaned upon for knowledge. nearly everything you say is categorically wrong. this is wrong as well. it does not follow that if the universe were created for man, then the earth would be at it's center. as long as God's FOCUS is on man, then it doesn't matter where we are located. your idea is as foolish as saying that because a man's child is the center of his focus, that his child's room would therefore HAVE to be directly located in the center of his house. and who says we're not at the center? there's a lot of support for the fact that our galaxy may be at the center of the universe. it's only philosophical assumptions that reject that idea because that would give man a unique place in the solar system, "and that's clearly incredible" says one astronomer, and therefore rejected. and your conclusions on Galileo are false as well. Galileo didn't prove the Bible to be false in some areas, what he proved false were certain INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible, and he proved false those who adopted the Ptolemaic interpretation of the galaxy, which the church had adopted. having a wrong interpretation of the Bible in no way undermines the Bible. it only undermines the ideas of the individual holding them. for a Christian to erroneously claim that Genesis talks about millions and vast ages and evolution doesn't undermine the Bible, because nowhere does the Bible say that. see this article on Galileo whenever you get a moment: it's called "The Galileo Twist" (it's easy reading, not too long): www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/galileo.asp here's a couple of lines from the essay that fully refute your ideas:
you also never responded to what i said about you trying to "build your Christian faith". what did you mean by that? and why did you respond so "innocently" to that one guy on the first page of this thread, when you have shown yourself to be nothing more than what he accused you of in the first place? which is a hard-nosed skeptic. any answers? |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame