-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A
An entire universe of evidence which includes his own being exists for the Christian worldview but he's not ready to admit that his myopic insistence on reductive materialism is preventing him from actually experiencing spiritual reality. He's never experienced it.
I have since my regeneration (e.g. spiritual new birth). I've received supernatural healing that I felt enter my body. I've communed with God. I've been in the presence of angels. I've been attacked by the devil and discerned God operate on my behalf to deliver me from those attacks. Etc... He, on the other hand, is spiritually dead and unregenerate trudging in myopia on a Christian forum trying to convince everyone they can't possibly have experienced what they certainly did experience because he can't perform a double blind test on it in a test tube... lol.
As I stated, the natural sciences depend on inductive inference, which is a matter of "weighing evidence and judging probability, not of proof." Competing explanations are evident at every level of the human endeavor to represent the world-from the details of quantum mechanics to what Karl Popper termed "ultimate questions" of meaning.
This means that the great questions of life (some of which are also scientific questions) cannot all be answered with any degree of certainty. Any given set of observations can be explained by a number of theories. To use the jargon of the philosophy of science: theories are underdetermined by the evidence. The question then arises: what criteria can be used to decide between them, especially when they are "empirically equivalent" (despite every side insisting otherwise)?
Volcano formation is fairly straight forward but what about supernatural healing or words of knowledge (see 1 Corinthians 12:8), for example?
The reality is that given the limits of science (especially with respect to issues involving transcendence): science, philosophy, religion and literature all have a legitimate place in the human quest for truth and meaning. This is a widely held view, both in Western culture at large and even within many sections of the scientific community itself.
Naturalistic science and other disciplines are not at war. It is the atheist (whose core, incontrovertible, foundational assumption is that there is no God) that places them so and tries to force us to choose between them. Worldviews promoted in such a way leans toward fanaticism.
I have since my regeneration (e.g. spiritual new birth). I've received supernatural healing that I felt enter my body. I've communed with God. I've been in the presence of angels. I've been attacked by the devil and discerned God operate on my behalf to deliver me from those attacks. Etc... He, on the other hand, is spiritually dead and unregenerate trudging in myopia on a Christian forum trying to convince everyone they can't possibly have experienced what they certainly did experience because he can't perform a double blind test on it in a test tube... lol.
As I stated, the natural sciences depend on inductive inference, which is a matter of "weighing evidence and judging probability, not of proof." Competing explanations are evident at every level of the human endeavor to represent the world-from the details of quantum mechanics to what Karl Popper termed "ultimate questions" of meaning.
This means that the great questions of life (some of which are also scientific questions) cannot all be answered with any degree of certainty. Any given set of observations can be explained by a number of theories. To use the jargon of the philosophy of science: theories are underdetermined by the evidence. The question then arises: what criteria can be used to decide between them, especially when they are "empirically equivalent" (despite every side insisting otherwise)?
Volcano formation is fairly straight forward but what about supernatural healing or words of knowledge (see 1 Corinthians 12:8), for example?
The reality is that given the limits of science (especially with respect to issues involving transcendence): science, philosophy, religion and literature all have a legitimate place in the human quest for truth and meaning. This is a widely held view, both in Western culture at large and even within many sections of the scientific community itself.
Naturalistic science and other disciplines are not at war. It is the atheist (whose core, incontrovertible, foundational assumption is that there is no God) that places them so and tries to force us to choose between them. Worldviews promoted in such a way leans toward fanaticism.
Last edited:
A
The flood was a local not a global event so there was only a need for a limited number of animals that were specific to the affected local geographical region which could not fend for themselves in the flood environment. Dinosaurs were extinct. No polar bears and penguins were aboard as they were in other geographical areas not affected by the local flood. This occurred early in human history before people had dispersed throughout the world (See the Out of Africa theory or the modified version of it which places the origin of modern humans North of Africa; interestingly the Out of Africa theory was originally called the "Noah's Ark" theory by William W. Howells).
The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local
The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local
I am not sure whether or not dinosaurs coincided with man - I don't really believe that the bible mentions dinosaurs (you would think that it would come up). But as I mentioned before, I believe that the bible does say that the earth was here prior to creation. Now, what that means, I don't know. How far prior to the six days of creation? - I don't know.
But, for me, at this point in time, evolution (as taught by "scientists") is out of the question. It is completely unacceptable. Not just because I am a Christian, but because, as I have pointed out, many animals will not mate outside of captivity and even when they do, they cannot reproduce.
And no matter how many times apes mate with apes, you cannot get a human - that is not how DNA works. DNA is a like a floor plan that builds itself. And no matter how many times you mate two of the same species it cannot make a different species. This is not hard to understand, really.
The Evolution THEORY is still around because, and only because it is the only explanation for us being here without God. It's that simple. And no matter how many time percepi says it doesn't, it does not change the fact that scientists are affected by other scientists assumptions and their own assumptions. And this has perverted their "understanding".
No matter how many times they say that they can accurately date something that is "a million" years old does not change the fact that they can not - Especially because there is nothing that is that old that can be dated. They are always telling us how the tectonic plates are moving - so how many years would it take for the earth's crust to make a complete cycle? And after a cycle has been completed (allowing the time for it to happen), everything that would have been testable would be destroyed in the magma - would it not??? It would be rendered totally useless through extreme heat.
And that's all I have to say about that
Forrest Gump
But, for me, at this point in time, evolution (as taught by "scientists") is out of the question. It is completely unacceptable. Not just because I am a Christian, but because, as I have pointed out, many animals will not mate outside of captivity and even when they do, they cannot reproduce.
And no matter how many times apes mate with apes, you cannot get a human - that is not how DNA works. DNA is a like a floor plan that builds itself. And no matter how many times you mate two of the same species it cannot make a different species. This is not hard to understand, really.
The Evolution THEORY is still around because, and only because it is the only explanation for us being here without God. It's that simple. And no matter how many time percepi says it doesn't, it does not change the fact that scientists are affected by other scientists assumptions and their own assumptions. And this has perverted their "understanding".
No matter how many times they say that they can accurately date something that is "a million" years old does not change the fact that they can not - Especially because there is nothing that is that old that can be dated. They are always telling us how the tectonic plates are moving - so how many years would it take for the earth's crust to make a complete cycle? And after a cycle has been completed (allowing the time for it to happen), everything that would have been testable would be destroyed in the magma - would it not??? It would be rendered totally useless through extreme heat.
And that's all I have to say about that
Forrest Gump
You're starting with the answer that you punched me in the fact. If we have the answer, then there's no purpose of proving that answer. The answer itself isn't evidence though. However, if a person who wasn't around demanded evidence, then I would have to present evidence that you punched me in the face.
You also mention one Nobel Prize winner who accepted Creationism. A chemist. Do I really need to look up the level of support behind evolution? I'll not waste my time since you're already aware of this level of support. You're moving goal posts. You talk about how most scientists are wrong, then you find a few scientists who do accept creationism and claim this is a large and important level of support. Oddly enough, these scientists are rarely ever experienced in the field of biology, such as Richard Smalley who's a chemist.
You also mention one Nobel Prize winner who accepted Creationism. A chemist. Do I really need to look up the level of support behind evolution? I'll not waste my time since you're already aware of this level of support. You're moving goal posts. You talk about how most scientists are wrong, then you find a few scientists who do accept creationism and claim this is a large and important level of support. Oddly enough, these scientists are rarely ever experienced in the field of biology, such as Richard Smalley who's a chemist.
Are you kiddin' me? Elin, you haven't done anything for this argument whatsoever except nitpick on things that are far besides the point, and pretend like you actually know what you're talking about.
I've asked you several questions and you just dodge them. For instance, can you tell me why some facets within a closed system decreasing in entropy is against the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
I've asked you several questions and you just dodge them. For instance, can you tell me why some facets within a closed system decreasing in entropy is against the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Non-responsive. . .still does not show the error of my argument on analogy (post #355).
And which "nitpicking" you are unable to address.
Truth has the answers for "nitpicking" also.
And remembering that science is not the only source of information on creation.
I am not convinced by "scientific" arguments,
which of necessity must be based on assumptions regarding what cannot be observed.
and, therefore, I choose not to make arguments based on assumption of the facts.
However, I am convinced that Jesus is the way, the Truth and the life,
because I am convinced of the truth of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures,
based on evidence which you cannot physically observe and measure.
And in those Scriptures is a written record of what you cannot observe,
and of which you make conclusions from assumptions regarding
the process of origin, dating, et al.
And from these Scriptures, I have only one argument to make,
that the God-man affirmed Scripture is the word of God,
and he affirmed the creation account of God as the Creator, as well as the accounts of
Sodom and Gomorrah,
Jonah and the whale,
murder of Abel,
Noah, the ark and the flood,
call of Moses in the burning bush,
Elijah and provision for the widow,
Naaman, the leper,
brazen serpent lifted in the desert,
manna,
existence of Abraham, and
the authority of Scripture (20 different times).
So if you care to deal with the original source of information on creation,
I will happy to do so with you.
And which "nitpicking" you are unable to address.
Truth has the answers for "nitpicking" also.
And remembering that science is not the only source of information on creation.
I am not convinced by "scientific" arguments,
which of necessity must be based on assumptions regarding what cannot be observed.
and, therefore, I choose not to make arguments based on assumption of the facts.
However, I am convinced that Jesus is the way, the Truth and the life,
because I am convinced of the truth of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures,
based on evidence which you cannot physically observe and measure.
And in those Scriptures is a written record of what you cannot observe,
and of which you make conclusions from assumptions regarding
the process of origin, dating, et al.
And from these Scriptures, I have only one argument to make,
that the God-man affirmed Scripture is the word of God,
and he affirmed the creation account of God as the Creator, as well as the accounts of
Sodom and Gomorrah,
Jonah and the whale,
murder of Abel,
Noah, the ark and the flood,
call of Moses in the burning bush,
Elijah and provision for the widow,
Naaman, the leper,
brazen serpent lifted in the desert,
manna,
existence of Abraham, and
the authority of Scripture (20 different times).
So if you care to deal with the original source of information on creation,
I will happy to do so with you.
Last edited:
You may not be an atheist but neither do you believe Scripture...and it's an out right lie the global flood began with Ellen G....
Genesis 7:19-24 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
You may not believe the account but don't go making up stories.
Genesis 7:19-24 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
You may not believe the account but don't go making up stories.
Last edited:
Hmm, why do I get the feeling that these prophesies will either have a metaphorical interpretation or they'll refer to already likely events?
Creation isn't supported by science - at all. So, no, it's not even a source of information on creation.
Science isn't based off of assumptions.
Much of what isn't directly observed can still be verified through science. That's one of the many purposes of science!
You then talk about how you don't make presumptuous arguments. That's all creationism is. Assumptions based on presupposed arguments that haven't been verified by science but are considered scientific because creationists consider them facts that do not need evidence outside of the Bible - which isn't how science works and is therefore not science.
It's a pity how you have never allowed yourself to become more knowledgeable about science.
If it can't be observed or measured, then it isn't evidence.
There's A LOT of research behind dating methods. They aren't arbitrary as you have come to believe.
The original source doesn't matter in science because that source is the Bible. It's assumed to be true without having to explain itself to be true. This isn't science.
Creation isn't supported by science - at all. So, no, it's not even a source of information on creation.
Science isn't based off of assumptions.
Much of what isn't directly observed can still be verified through science. That's one of the many purposes of science!
You then talk about how you don't make presumptuous arguments. That's all creationism is. Assumptions based on presupposed arguments that haven't been verified by science but are considered scientific because creationists consider them facts that do not need evidence outside of the Bible - which isn't how science works and is therefore not science.
It's a pity how you have never allowed yourself to become more knowledgeable about science.
If it can't be observed or measured, then it isn't evidence.
There's A LOT of research behind dating methods. They aren't arbitrary as you have come to believe.
The original source doesn't matter in science because that source is the Bible. It's assumed to be true without having to explain itself to be true. This isn't science.