Scott Walker On Evolution: 'I Am Going To Punt On That One'

[gtopa1]

Fine, there's creationist science. That's no skin of my sac or yours.

Yea, you use dismissive terms to diminish a deity you don't understand; that doesn't prove anything. And again, you're not the authority on the start of the world that you pretend to be. You simply do not know all that you'd like to think you know.

This is a typical tactic creationists use - claim that I don't understand the religion/deity. I was once a devout Catholic and come from a very large family of devout Catholics, so don't tell me that I don't understand. I never said I was an authority. There are no authorities in the sciences. There are, however, experts, and I am one of them. You know, I've heard creationists say the same thing - we don't know most of the universe (of course, they are referring to dark energy and dark matter which make up the bulk of the universe, and about which we know virtually nothing). And the are right. We don't know much about that stuff. But we know that they exist, and we know this because we made the discovery by applying the scientific method. We did not say "we don't know what's going on there, it must be god". And the rest of the universe, the matter and electromagnetic energy, we know a hell of a lot about. You say that we don't know as much as we think we do. I say that while there is so much more to learn, there is a lot more that we know than you are either aware of or are willing to admit.

Nonsense. You are confusing two issues. One is faith; the other is the workings of a system. That some point to God as the "Ultimate": cause etc is faith. Science is about the nuts and bolts that tie the Universe together. I say the two should NOT be confused, but all you do is confuse them.

Faith is a belief in something not in evidence. Religion has, throughout history, attempted to explain, sans evidence, the nuts and bolts of the universe via dogmatic reasoning, ridiculous parables, and mythology. And when they can't explain it, they conclude that you must have "faith" that they know better than you do. Primarily, it is a god of the gaps argument. Science rejects this kind of reasoning because it doesn't actually explain anything.

I haven't met a single one that knew what he/she was talking about. And I have talked to many. If you are concerned that I am lumping people together, then have at it. Don't be shy. Tell us what creationism, in your view, is all about and why it should be considered scientifically valid? (this should be entertaining)

Do you mean to sat that you don't even know what Creationism is and you are condemning it as "unscientific"?? The Scientific method work because it is based on refutation. So refute!!!

Greg

No that is not what I asked. He is saying that he disagrees with me about what creationism is. I know what it is, and have argued against it for decades. He apparently believes it is something different so I asked him to tell me what he thinks it is. As for the scientific method, you get an F with your attempt. It is not about refutation. It is about falsification, testing, observation, repetition, verification, and peer review.

noun
1.
an act of refuting a statement, charge, etc.;disproof



You do speak ENGLISH, no?

Science is not about disproving anything. You cannot disprove anything in science. There are no proofs in science, either. Only in mathematics do you have proofs.

Since when has "peer review" had anything to do with it?? Galileo's "peers" reviewed his work and found it lacking. Does that mean that he was wrong?? Of course not!

Peer review is a vital part of the scientific process. Galileo's peers were the scientists of Europe, and the ones who were not under the constraints of the Catholic Church agreed with him. It was the Catholic Church that not only disagreed with him, but threatened his very existence for publicizing his discoveries.

" I know what it is"

Do you?

""The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283). "

Truth cannot contradict truth!!

Greg

If you are going to recite the catechism, you should recite the entire verse:

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."

In science, the truth is what is in evidence. In religion, the truth is whatever they say it is. Simply stating that "These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" doesn't mean that the creator actually exists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them. Got anything like that? We only have the Church's word for it. And I'm sorry, but personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, I am under no obligation to believe one person's (or group's) personal revelation over that of another. It is not objective, and cannot be falsified.

I would not suggest that you conform to anything, but your "belief in" Science is as faith based as any religion. Understand the limits of Science and your faith is limited. It's like having faith in plumbing!! lol

Greg

That's like saying that I must have faith in the force of gravity. If I drop my pen, I know it will fall to the ground. My belief that it will is not faith-based. It is based on empirical evidence through experimentation, repeated ad nauseam. I can demonstrate it, make predictions about it, generate a mathematical theorem of how it works, and have you do the same and thereby, through peer review verify that my findings are valid. Got anything remotely resembling that with your creator? Sorry, you are mistaken.

If you drop it in space will it fall down? I have falsified it!! So your theory is incomplete!!!


Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Stephen Hawking who may be the smartest science man of all time on the universe right up their with Einstein doesn't deny God and talks as if God exists,

As if?

Stephen Hawking makes it clear There is no God - CNET

Stephen Hawking makes it clear: There is no God

Try again.

Who gives a damn what a privileged whaco thinks!! Yes: in Physics he's brilliant. In other things...just arrogant!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

d

Atheism is a faith. I'm not claiming it's a great faith. All faiths aren't created equal.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

You claim the default setting is non belief. That seems like an odd conclusion from a so-called scientist.

Why?

But we've established that you're a hack scientist.

So you will be lowing your argument to name calling, will you? And you think that makes you a moral person? Really? What would Jesus do?

If the default is non belief, then why do believers greatly outnumber non-believers?

4,000 years of brainwashing by religious sects tends to have that effect.

And if there otherwise is a default setting, it would be undecided. For in fact, one has to wonder about the existence of a deity. He doesn't just say, 'welp can't possibly exist.'

Babies are born in this world without any knowledge or experience. They are, except for their instinctual behavior, essentially blank slates. They have no knowledge of deity. We have to teach that to them. Well, we don't actually HAVE to teach that to them. But people do. And believing in something larger than oneself, that there is some sky daddy out there that will keep you safe, be your companion so you won't feel so small and all alone is a powerful message. It is also a delusion. Personally, I believe that religion is a genetic relic from our time as apes when we were all terrified of angry alpha males.

No, I would not claim that atheists have stripped themselves of all morals. But I would say that they have sustained a belief that is rooted in selfishness;

That is a very arrogant and biased position. I'm an atheist, and I would give the shirt off my back if someone needed it. So don't presume that you know me, because you do not.

and that ultimately will have moral consequences. And thus I have not claimed that religion has a monopoly on morals. In fact, I would claim that most religions are even corrupted to a great degree. But corruption does not deny the existence of God. Rather corruption is a testament to man's fall.

Wow, you are just full of delusions, aren't you.

Your Einstein quote is not an argumentation for atheism btw. So, I really have no idea why you're quoting it.

I didn't say that is was an argument for atheism. It certainly is an argument for humanism. Do you have a problem with widening one's circles of compassion? Is that a problem for you?

Babies are born w/o knowledge or experience? Well, that defies prenatal studies. And it certainly supposes that the spirit does not predate the body, which you do not know, do you? Again, you use a pseudeo science for your conclusions.

Yea, I've heard time and time again, atheists saying they'd give the shirt off their back. To me, it's a canned response.

Frankly. I don't care whether or not you believe me. People who know me know that it is true. They also know that I am not in the habit of lying. Erm, "claiming a deity doesn't exist is indeed a selfish act". Oh really? And making up gods so you don't have to feel so scared and alone isn't?

Yea, well whether I know you or not is not truly relevant to the argument at hand.....
And claiming someone else's religious conviction to be selfish (or unselfish) does not erase the fact that atheism is not a knowledge and it is indeed rooted in selfishness.

Resorting to insults isn't helping your argument. Do you believe in Zeus? Apollo? Hera? Shiva? If not, why not? The only difference between you and I is that I disbelieve in one less god.

Nah: you're an animist.

Greg

 

[orogenicman]

What is the value of believing something not in evidence as opposed to finding evidence and then conducting one's actions according to those findings?

Honestly, you're asking me to preach pretty much. Rather than do that, I'll just say that science hasn't shown that abstract spirituality doesn't exist.

No I am asking you a straightforward question in response to your claim that I am "crazy if you think that this explain away the value of faith". Either you know the value of faith or you don't. In response, you decided to move the goalpost, I assume because you don't know the answer to the question. Science has found no unambiguous evidence for the supernatural. Even the word, supernatural, is meaningless. Either it is natural or is not. There is no "super" in natural.

As a scientist, you should've ascertained at least a proximate value of faith by now even if you're not a believer yourself. I don't feel compelled to be a defender of faith just because you're not a believer. However, I have noted that you've applied a certain dogma towards people of faith.

How does one ascertain the "proximate value" of a belief in something not in evidence? Simple. There is no evidence of the thing which is believed, so it has no real value.

There is plenty of evidence that Science has confirmed with Genesis and the word of God.
Starting with the big bang theory and God speaking the Universe into existent. Science has confirmed that there was a beginning. When the Bible was written, most people believed the universe was eternal.
That water covered the whole earth and then God separated the waters from the land.
That there was one land mass, that science has called Pangaea and that Pangaea broke apart during Peleg's time.
Science says that man was not around during the breakup of the super continent Pangaea but the Bible says that it did break up during Peleg's time.
The Bible says the Earth is round and that it is free floating. Science has confirmed it.
God’s word states that there were “channels” and “mountains” in the sea in contrast to the common belief at that time that the bottom of the sea was flat. Science has now proven God’s word to be correct.
God tells us that the stars make noise. Modern man has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch.
This is just a handful of many things where Science has proved that the God's written word is true.
So to say that Science and the Bible are not compatible is wrong.

Anyone who tries to use the bible as a science book is a fool. Sorry,. I can't be kind about this. It is NOT a science book.

 

[orogenicman]

Stephen Hawking who may be the smartest science man of all time on the universe right up their with Einstein doesn't deny God and talks as if God exists,

As if?

Stephen Hawking makes it clear There is no God - CNET

Stephen Hawking makes it clear: There is no God

Try again.

Who gives a damn what a privileged whaco thinks!! Yes: in Physics he's brilliant. In other things...just arrogant!

Greg

So, he can have an opinion as long as it doesn't conflict with your narrow world view. Then he is a "priviledged whaco (sic)". Got it. (eyes roll)

 

[orogenicman]

d

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Why?

So you will be lowing your argument to name calling, will you? And you think that makes you a moral person? Really? What would Jesus do?

4,000 years of brainwashing by religious sects tends to have that effect.

Babies are born in this world without any knowledge or experience. They are, except for their instinctual behavior, essentially blank slates. They have no knowledge of deity. We have to teach that to them. Well, we don't actually HAVE to teach that to them. But people do. And believing in something larger than oneself, that there is some sky daddy out there that will keep you safe, be your companion so you won't feel so small and all alone is a powerful message. It is also a delusion. Personally, I believe that religion is a genetic relic from our time as apes when we were all terrified of angry alpha males.

That is a very arrogant and biased position. I'm an atheist, and I would give the shirt off my back if someone needed it. So don't presume that you know me, because you do not.

Wow, you are just full of delusions, aren't you.

I didn't say that is was an argument for atheism. It certainly is an argument for humanism. Do you have a problem with widening one's circles of compassion? Is that a problem for you?

Babies are born w/o knowledge or experience? Well, that defies prenatal studies. And it certainly supposes that the spirit does not predate the body, which you do not know, do you? Again, you use a pseudeo science for your conclusions.

Yea, I've heard time and time again, atheists saying they'd give the shirt off their back. To me, it's a canned response.

Frankly. I don't care whether or not you believe me. People who know me know that it is true. They also know that I am not in the habit of lying. Erm, "claiming a deity doesn't exist is indeed a selfish act". Oh really? And making up gods so you don't have to feel so scared and alone isn't?

Yea, well whether I know you or not is not truly relevant to the argument at hand.....
And claiming someone else's religious conviction to be selfish (or unselfish) does not erase the fact that atheism is not a knowledge and it is indeed rooted in selfishness.

Resorting to insults isn't helping your argument. Do you believe in Zeus? Apollo? Hera? Shiva? If not, why not? The only difference between you and I is that I disbelieve in one less god.

Nah: you're an animist.

Greg

Since I don't believe in spirituality in any form, non-sequitur. This is not make up shit Thursday, pal.

 

[peach174]

Honestly, you're asking me to preach pretty much. Rather than do that, I'll just say that science hasn't shown that abstract spirituality doesn't exist.

No I am asking you a straightforward question in response to your claim that I am "crazy if you think that this explain away the value of faith". Either you know the value of faith or you don't. In response, you decided to move the goalpost, I assume because you don't know the answer to the question. Science has found no unambiguous evidence for the supernatural. Even the word, supernatural, is meaningless. Either it is natural or is not. There is no "super" in natural.

As a scientist, you should've ascertained at least a proximate value of faith by now even if you're not a believer yourself. I don't feel compelled to be a defender of faith just because you're not a believer. However, I have noted that you've applied a certain dogma towards people of faith.

How does one ascertain the "proximate value" of a belief in something not in evidence? Simple. There is no evidence of the thing which is believed, so it has no real value.

There is plenty of evidence that Science has confirmed with Genesis and the word of God.
Starting with the big bang theory and God speaking the Universe into existent. Science has confirmed that there was a beginning. When the Bible was written, most people believed the universe was eternal.
That water covered the whole earth and then God separated the waters from the land.
That there was one land mass, that science has called Pangaea and that Pangaea broke apart during Peleg's time.
Science says that man was not around during the breakup of the super continent Pangaea but the Bible says that it did break up during Peleg's time.
The Bible says the Earth is round and that it is free floating. Science has confirmed it.
God’s word states that there were “channels” and “mountains” in the sea in contrast to the common belief at that time that the bottom of the sea was flat. Science has now proven God’s word to be correct.
God tells us that the stars make noise. Modern man has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch.
This is just a handful of many things where Science has proved that the God's written word is true.
So to say that Science and the Bible are not compatible is wrong.

Anyone who tries to use the bible as a science book is a fool. Sorry,. I can't be kind about this. It is NOT a science book.

I did not use the Bible as a science book.
I said Science confirms the Bible.

 

[orogenicman]

This is a typical tactic creationists use - claim that I don't understand the religion/deity. I was once a devout Catholic and come from a very large family of devout Catholics, so don't tell me that I don't understand. I never said I was an authority. There are no authorities in the sciences. There are, however, experts, and I am one of them. You know, I've heard creationists say the same thing - we don't know most of the universe (of course, they are referring to dark energy and dark matter which make up the bulk of the universe, and about which we know virtually nothing). And the are right. We don't know much about that stuff. But we know that they exist, and we know this because we made the discovery by applying the scientific method. We did not say "we don't know what's going on there, it must be god". And the rest of the universe, the matter and electromagnetic energy, we know a hell of a lot about. You say that we don't know as much as we think we do. I say that while there is so much more to learn, there is a lot more that we know than you are either aware of or are willing to admit.

Nonsense. You are confusing two issues. One is faith; the other is the workings of a system. That some point to God as the "Ultimate": cause etc is faith. Science is about the nuts and bolts that tie the Universe together. I say the two should NOT be confused, but all you do is confuse them.

Faith is a belief in something not in evidence. Religion has, throughout history, attempted to explain, sans evidence, the nuts and bolts of the universe via dogmatic reasoning, ridiculous parables, and mythology. And when they can't explain it, they conclude that you must have "faith" that they know better than you do. Primarily, it is a god of the gaps argument. Science rejects this kind of reasoning because it doesn't actually explain anything.

Do you mean to sat that you don't even know what Creationism is and you are condemning it as "unscientific"?? The Scientific method work because it is based on refutation. So refute!!!

Greg

No that is not what I asked. He is saying that he disagrees with me about what creationism is. I know what it is, and have argued against it for decades. He apparently believes it is something different so I asked him to tell me what he thinks it is. As for the scientific method, you get an F with your attempt. It is not about refutation. It is about falsification, testing, observation, repetition, verification, and peer review.

noun
1.
an act of refuting a statement, charge, etc.;disproof



You do speak ENGLISH, no?

Science is not about disproving anything. You cannot disprove anything in science. There are no proofs in science, either. Only in mathematics do you have proofs.

Since when has "peer review" had anything to do with it?? Galileo's "peers" reviewed his work and found it lacking. Does that mean that he was wrong?? Of course not!

Peer review is a vital part of the scientific process. Galileo's peers were the scientists of Europe, and the ones who were not under the constraints of the Catholic Church agreed with him. It was the Catholic Church that not only disagreed with him, but threatened his very existence for publicizing his discoveries.

" I know what it is"

Do you?

""The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283). "

Truth cannot contradict truth!!

Greg

If you are going to recite the catechism, you should recite the entire verse:

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."

In science, the truth is what is in evidence. In religion, the truth is whatever they say it is. Simply stating that "These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" doesn't mean that the creator actually exists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them. Got anything like that? We only have the Church's word for it. And I'm sorry, but personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, I am under no obligation to believe one person's (or group's) personal revelation over that of another. It is not objective, and cannot be falsified.

I would not suggest that you conform to anything, but your "belief in" Science is as faith based as any religion. Understand the limits of Science and your faith is limited. It's like having faith in plumbing!! lol

Greg

That's like saying that I must have faith in the force of gravity. If I drop my pen, I know it will fall to the ground. My belief that it will is not faith-based. It is based on empirical evidence through experimentation, repeated ad nauseam. I can demonstrate it, make predictions about it, generate a mathematical theorem of how it works, and have you do the same and thereby, through peer review verify that my findings are valid. Got anything remotely resembling that with your creator? Sorry, you are mistaken.

If you drop it in space will it fall down? I have falsified it!! So your theory is incomplete!!!


Greg

If I drop it in space will it fall? Yes. Space ships orbiting the Earth are falling AROUND it. You should take a class. Zero gravity in Earth orbit is a misnomer. Objects in orbit do not have zero gravity. They are in free fall. There is a huge difference between the two.

 

[orogenicman]

No I am asking you a straightforward question in response to your claim that I am "crazy if you think that this explain away the value of faith". Either you know the value of faith or you don't. In response, you decided to move the goalpost, I assume because you don't know the answer to the question. Science has found no unambiguous evidence for the supernatural. Even the word, supernatural, is meaningless. Either it is natural or is not. There is no "super" in natural.

As a scientist, you should've ascertained at least a proximate value of faith by now even if you're not a believer yourself. I don't feel compelled to be a defender of faith just because you're not a believer. However, I have noted that you've applied a certain dogma towards people of faith.

How does one ascertain the "proximate value" of a belief in something not in evidence? Simple. There is no evidence of the thing which is believed, so it has no real value.

There is plenty of evidence that Science has confirmed with Genesis and the word of God.
Starting with the big bang theory and God speaking the Universe into existent. Science has confirmed that there was a beginning. When the Bible was written, most people believed the universe was eternal.
That water covered the whole earth and then God separated the waters from the land.
That there was one land mass, that science has called Pangaea and that Pangaea broke apart during Peleg's time.
Science says that man was not around during the breakup of the super continent Pangaea but the Bible says that it did break up during Peleg's time.
The Bible says the Earth is round and that it is free floating. Science has confirmed it.
God’s word states that there were “channels” and “mountains” in the sea in contrast to the common belief at that time that the bottom of the sea was flat. Science has now proven God’s word to be correct.
God tells us that the stars make noise. Modern man has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch.
This is just a handful of many things where Science has proved that the God's written word is true.
So to say that Science and the Bible are not compatible is wrong.

Anyone who tries to use the bible as a science book is a fool. Sorry,. I can't be kind about this. It is NOT a science book.

I did not use the Bible as a science book.
I said Science confirms the Bible.

Science confirms the burning of Atlanta during the Civil War. That doesn't mean that there really was a Bret Butler and that he said "frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn".

 

[kaz]

I said Science confirms the Bible.

Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden? That the earth is 6,000 years old? How does science confirm that?

 

[peach174]

As a scientist, you should've ascertained at least a proximate value of faith by now even if you're not a believer yourself. I don't feel compelled to be a defender of faith just because you're not a believer. However, I have noted that you've applied a certain dogma towards people of faith.

How does one ascertain the "proximate value" of a belief in something not in evidence? Simple. There is no evidence of the thing which is believed, so it has no real value.

There is plenty of evidence that Science has confirmed with Genesis and the word of God.
Starting with the big bang theory and God speaking the Universe into existent. Science has confirmed that there was a beginning. When the Bible was written, most people believed the universe was eternal.
That water covered the whole earth and then God separated the waters from the land.
That there was one land mass, that science has called Pangaea and that Pangaea broke apart during Peleg's time.
Science says that man was not around during the breakup of the super continent Pangaea but the Bible says that it did break up during Peleg's time.
The Bible says the Earth is round and that it is free floating. Science has confirmed it.
God’s word states that there were “channels” and “mountains” in the sea in contrast to the common belief at that time that the bottom of the sea was flat. Science has now proven God’s word to be correct.
God tells us that the stars make noise. Modern man has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch.
This is just a handful of many things where Science has proved that the God's written word is true.
So to say that Science and the Bible are not compatible is wrong.

Anyone who tries to use the bible as a science book is a fool. Sorry,. I can't be kind about this. It is NOT a science book.

I did not use the Bible as a science book.
I said Science confirms the Bible.

Science confirms the burning of Atlanta during the Civil War. That doesn't mean that there really was a Bret Butler and that he said "frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn".

Seems than you have a big problem with Science confirming God's word. So therefore the two are not compatible, when they are.
Seems that your biased opinion is - the bible is a story only, yet Science has confirmed his written word and you refuse to see it let alone even accept the possibility.
God is the greatest Scientist of all.

 

[peach174]

I said Science confirms the Bible.

Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden? That the earth is 6,000 years old? How does science confirm that?

I have never said that I believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

 

[orogenicman]

How does one ascertain the "proximate value" of a belief in something not in evidence? Simple. There is no evidence of the thing which is believed, so it has no real value.

There is plenty of evidence that Science has confirmed with Genesis and the word of God.
Starting with the big bang theory and God speaking the Universe into existent. Science has confirmed that there was a beginning. When the Bible was written, most people believed the universe was eternal.
That water covered the whole earth and then God separated the waters from the land.
That there was one land mass, that science has called Pangaea and that Pangaea broke apart during Peleg's time.
Science says that man was not around during the breakup of the super continent Pangaea but the Bible says that it did break up during Peleg's time.
The Bible says the Earth is round and that it is free floating. Science has confirmed it.
God’s word states that there were “channels” and “mountains” in the sea in contrast to the common belief at that time that the bottom of the sea was flat. Science has now proven God’s word to be correct.
God tells us that the stars make noise. Modern man has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch.
This is just a handful of many things where Science has proved that the God's written word is true.
So to say that Science and the Bible are not compatible is wrong.

Anyone who tries to use the bible as a science book is a fool. Sorry,. I can't be kind about this. It is NOT a science book.

I did not use the Bible as a science book.
I said Science confirms the Bible.

Science confirms the burning of Atlanta during the Civil War. That doesn't mean that there really was a Bret Butler and that he said "frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn".

Seems than you have a big problem with Science confirming God's word. So therefore the two are not compatible, when they are.
Seems that your biased opinion is - the bible is a story only, yet Science has confirmed his written word and you refuse to see it let alone even accept the possibility.
God is the greatest Scientist of all.

Really? Has science confirmed that Jesus walked on water, and fed 4,000 people with a handful of fish and bread? Has it confirmed that Moses parted the red Sea, or that the Israelites blew their horns and brought the walls of Jericho down? You might as well try to argue that Paul Bunyan actually did drag his axe across the land and created the Grand Canyon for all the silliness you believe is true.

 

[kaz]

I said Science confirms the Bible.

Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden? That the earth is 6,000 years old? How does science confirm that?

I have never said that I believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Then what specifically did you mean by "Science confirms the Bible?"

 

[NYcarbineer]

How does one ascertain the "proximate value" of a belief in something not in evidence? Simple. There is no evidence of the thing which is believed, so it has no real value.

There is plenty of evidence that Science has confirmed with Genesis and the word of God.
Starting with the big bang theory and God speaking the Universe into existent. Science has confirmed that there was a beginning. When the Bible was written, most people believed the universe was eternal.
That water covered the whole earth and then God separated the waters from the land.
That there was one land mass, that science has called Pangaea and that Pangaea broke apart during Peleg's time.
Science says that man was not around during the breakup of the super continent Pangaea but the Bible says that it did break up during Peleg's time.
The Bible says the Earth is round and that it is free floating. Science has confirmed it.
God’s word states that there were “channels” and “mountains” in the sea in contrast to the common belief at that time that the bottom of the sea was flat. Science has now proven God’s word to be correct.
God tells us that the stars make noise. Modern man has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch.
This is just a handful of many things where Science has proved that the God's written word is true.
So to say that Science and the Bible are not compatible is wrong.

Anyone who tries to use the bible as a science book is a fool. Sorry,. I can't be kind about this. It is NOT a science book.

I did not use the Bible as a science book.
I said Science confirms the Bible.

Science confirms the burning of Atlanta during the Civil War. That doesn't mean that there really was a Bret Butler and that he said "frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn".

Seems than you have a big problem with Science confirming God's word. So therefore the two are not compatible, when they are.
Seems that your biased opinion is - the bible is a story only, yet Science has confirmed his written word and you refuse to see it let alone even accept the possibility.
God is the greatest Scientist of all.

Science has not even confirmed that God wrote the Bible.

 

[peach174]

There is plenty of evidence that Science has confirmed with Genesis and the word of God.
Starting with the big bang theory and God speaking the Universe into existent. Science has confirmed that there was a beginning. When the Bible was written, most people believed the universe was eternal.
That water covered the whole earth and then God separated the waters from the land.
That there was one land mass, that science has called Pangaea and that Pangaea broke apart during Peleg's time.
Science says that man was not around during the breakup of the super continent Pangaea but the Bible says that it did break up during Peleg's time.
The Bible says the Earth is round and that it is free floating. Science has confirmed it.
God’s word states that there were “channels” and “mountains” in the sea in contrast to the common belief at that time that the bottom of the sea was flat. Science has now proven God’s word to be correct.
God tells us that the stars make noise. Modern man has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch.
This is just a handful of many things where Science has proved that the God's written word is true.
So to say that Science and the Bible are not compatible is wrong.

Anyone who tries to use the bible as a science book is a fool. Sorry,. I can't be kind about this. It is NOT a science book.

I did not use the Bible as a science book.
I said Science confirms the Bible.

Science confirms the burning of Atlanta during the Civil War. That doesn't mean that there really was a Bret Butler and that he said "frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn".

Seems than you have a big problem with Science confirming God's word. So therefore the two are not compatible, when they are.
Seems that your biased opinion is - the bible is a story only, yet Science has confirmed his written word and you refuse to see it let alone even accept the possibility.
God is the greatest Scientist of all.

Really? Has science confirmed that Jesus walked on water, and fed 4,000 people with a handful of fish and bread? Has it confirmed that Moses parted the red Sea, or that the Israelites blew their horns and brought the walls of Jericho down? You might as well try to argue that Paul Bunyan actually did drag his axe across the land and created the Grand Canyon for all the silliness you believe is true.

Ever hear of Thixotropy?
Science has proved how the parting of the red sea could have happened as well as the walls of Jericho.
Many who refuse to believe, pick the ones that have not been confirmed yet and dismiss the ones that have.

 

[orogenicman]

Anyone who tries to use the bible as a science book is a fool. Sorry,. I can't be kind about this. It is NOT a science book.

I did not use the Bible as a science book.
I said Science confirms the Bible.

Science confirms the burning of Atlanta during the Civil War. That doesn't mean that there really was a Bret Butler and that he said "frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn".

Seems than you have a big problem with Science confirming God's word. So therefore the two are not compatible, when they are.
Seems that your biased opinion is - the bible is a story only, yet Science has confirmed his written word and you refuse to see it let alone even accept the possibility.
God is the greatest Scientist of all.

Really? Has science confirmed that Jesus walked on water, and fed 4,000 people with a handful of fish and bread? Has it confirmed that Moses parted the red Sea, or that the Israelites blew their horns and brought the walls of Jericho down? You might as well try to argue that Paul Bunyan actually did drag his axe across the land and created the Grand Canyon for all the silliness you believe is true.

Ever hear of Thixotropy?
Science has proved how the parting of the red sea could have happened as well as the walls of Jericho.
Many who refuse to believe, pick the ones that have not been confirmed yet and dismiss the ones that have.

Jericho has been destroyed at least 9 times by earthquakes along the Dead Sea rift. No need to resort to "the Israelites did it - with a little help from the friendly god". Whether or not the red sea COULD have been parted is irrelevant to whether it WAS parted.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Sorry, dude. But atheism is a faith. .

Wrong. If that were true, then everything you don't believe exists because you've seen no evidence would become an exercise of faith.

 

[peach174]

I said Science confirms the Bible.

Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden? That the earth is 6,000 years old? How does science confirm that?

I have never said that I believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Then what specifically did you mean by "Science confirms the Bible?"

Read post # 580.

I believe that God took 6,000 years to do his Creation but that does not mean Earth is 6,000 years old.
I believe science, that Earth is billions of years old.
This is the mistake that Creationists make. Just because it took God 1,000 years (one day for him)- for each one of his 6 Creations does not mean that Earth was not billions of years old before.

 

[orogenicman]

I said Science confirms the Bible.

Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden? That the earth is 6,000 years old? How does science confirm that?

I have never said that I believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Then what specifically did you mean by "Science confirms the Bible?"

Read post # 580.

I believe that God took 6,000 years to do his Creation but that does not mean Earth is 6,000 years old.
I believe science, that Earth is billions of years old.
This is the mistake that Creationists make. Just because it took God 1,000 years (one day for him)- for each one of his 6 Creations does not mean that Earth was not billions of years old before.

Really? Then how do you explain the 3.8 billion years between the first appearance of microbes on Earth and the evolution of man?