Do you believe the Flood was a historical event?

[Farsight001]

That’s my whole point. People still can’t clearly understand all of the details of a shooting that happened in 1963 and then, some scientists are going to tell us what happened millions of years ago? Baloney.

Well, these scientists have tons more information and data to go on and have done thousands upon thousands of experiments on the issue.

 

[edwest2]

Well, these scientists have tons more information and data to go on and have done thousands upon thousands of experiments on the issue.

I think their area of competence ends when it comes to miracles.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Farsight001]

I think their area of competence ends when it comes to miracles.

Of course it does simply because miracles are supernatural and therefore out of their area of study. But we weren’t talking about miracles. We were discussing science.

And if you’re just going to posit a miracle whenever science disagrees with your opinion on the subject, well…lets just say it doesn’t reflect well on your intellectual integrity.

 

[pnewton]

That’s my truth, I’m skeptical, I don’t consider them infallible.

I do not think anyone thinks that science is infallible. Most of what you mentioned are called theories with a reason. Is it that you doubt the existence of truth, or do you believe that truth is something that we can never know? Do you not believe any scientific truth exists?

 

[pnewton]

And if you’re just going to posit a miracle whenever science disagrees with your opinion on the subject, well…lets just say it doesn’t reflect well on your intellectual integrity.

I think for most science skeptics, it is not a matter of intellectual integrity as it is a decided disinterest. There is a choice to not believe in some area of science by not being deeply educated in that area. We all do this in most areas. It is why we have specialization in every facet of life.

 

[Jehannette]

Of course it does simply because miracles are supernatural and therefore out of their area of study. But we weren’t talking about miracles. We were discussing science.

And if you’re just going to posit a miracle whenever science disagrees with your opinion on the subject, well…lets just say it doesn’t reflect well on your intellectual integrity.

It is de fide that we, all human beings, descend from two human beings, “Adam & Eve,” and “the Science” has, supposedly, falsified that belief.

 

[Zenkai]

And if you’re just going to posit a miracle whenever science disagrees with your opinion on the subject, well…lets just say it doesn’t reflect well on your intellectual integrity.

BS.

There are certain things that science will never be able to explain. Divine intervention being one of them.

 

[edwest2]

Of course it does simply because miracles are supernatural and therefore out of their area of study. But we weren’t talking about miracles. We were discussing science.

And if you’re just going to posit a miracle whenever science disagrees with your opinion on the subject, well…lets just say it doesn’t reflect well on your intellectual integrity.

Do you think the Bible is a science book?

Peace,
Ed

 

[pnewton]

and “the Science” has, supposedly, falsified that belief.

What is “the Science” and where does it falsify this believe.

Adam and Eve are a matter of faith. Those (like the Catholic Church) that accept truth is found in science also understand that truth can never contradict truth.

 

[Hunter24]

There isn’t enough water on the earth to cover it in its entirety at the moment. Where did it all go?

 

[Jehannette]

What is “the Science” and where does it falsify this believe.

Adam and Eve are a matter of faith. Those (like the Catholic Church) that accept truth is found in science also understand that truth can never contradict truth.

You probably should start a new thread on this:

whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/adam-and-eve-the-ultimate-standoff-between-science-and-faith-and-a-contest/

The author errs – from yours truly:

The existence and creation of Adam & Eve were miracles – two fully-grown individuals do not appear ex nihilo possessing thought and speech. Only a miracle could explain such an event. It should come as no surprise that modern genetic evidence and evolutionary theory could not “account” for the existence of Adam & Eve any more than such theories could explain how Christ could have been conceived and born of a Virgin, turn well-water into wine, walk on water that was deeper than the length of his body, or be clinically dead for no less than 36 hours and return to life in a resurrected body that was able to pass through solid matter, appear and disappear, and rise to Heaven on its own volition out of the gravity well of the Earth. As with Adam & Eve, such things are scientifically and medically impossible, which is why such events are referred to as miracles.

It should come as no surprise to anyone as to why modern genetic evidence contradicts the fact that all human beings descend from two original individuals, Adam & Eve – the children of Eve were also miracles, in that they had DNA completely distinct from both that of their parents. No doubt if a modern geneticist tested the DNA of Eve’s children, he/she would find that they were “not” the offspring of Eve, and not only were they “not” her biological children (even though she gave birth to them), but that they were “not” even related to each other! This would explain the modern genetic diversity that is seen today while retaining the absolute fidelity to the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.

 

[Farsight001]

It is de fide that we, all human beings, descend from two human beings, “Adam & Eve,” and “the Science” has, supposedly, falsified that belief.

That is not even remotely relevant to what I was saying.

 

[Farsight001]

BS.

There are certain things that science will never be able to explain. Divine intervention being one of them.

You call BS on my statement? So you do believe that positing a miracle as an explanation whenever science disagrees with your opinion does, in fact, reflect well on intellectual integrity? Because I’d love to understand how you came to that conclusion.

 

[Prieldedi]

I do not think anyone thinks that science is infallible. Most of what you mentioned are called theories with a reason. Is it that you doubt the existence of truth, or do you believe that truth is something that we can never know? Do you not believe any scientific truth exists?

Yes, I believe in science that can be proved to be truthful. But here we are dealing with science that is not exact. Since it’s not exact we have two groups of scientists arriving at totally opposite conclusions while looking at the same data. In chemistry you mix 2 particles of hydrogen and 1 of oxygen and every chemist will tell you the result is water.

But other sciences are not exact, for example when you have a fossil of an animal and one scientist tells you the owner of that fossil lived 140 millions of years ago, and another scientist tells you it lived 20,000 years ago. So I have to choose which scientist to believe. If I were a trained scientist in any of these field I might have my own opinion, but since I’m not and all I have is my common sense, I have to decide whom to believe. And as much that I want to believe them, I find many of the conclusions this one group of scientists give me, well, too difficult to believe.

I should have made myself clear in that I do believe in scientists, but the ones I believe are the ones whose conclusions differ from those who are more popular, the ones being promoted and supported by institutions like the NGS, Discovery Channel, Smithsonian Institute, etc.

Take Global warming for example, there are scientists for and against man being the culprit, there are scientists for and against it’s just a natural trend. Scientists are reading the same data and reach opposite conclusions. I have to decide who should I believe.

 

[Farsight001]

Do you think the Bible is a science book?

Of course I don’t.

 

[tabycat]

I didn’t say it, infallible scientists did, who are part of the same group of scientists that tell you about an asteroid killing the dinosaurs and all those stories. These scientists are the ones who made you laugh, don’t underestimate them, they are professionals.

Did you read their article? Check the link:

Early Earth 'was covered in water’

You can check this one too, it’s the same news.

God’s clues are in His book too, not just in rocks eroded by time. I guess most Christians read better His book than geologist read His rocks. It all is a matter of reading, and scientists can misinterpret what they read too.

Scientists are not God, throughfore they are not infallable. Also, not all mainline scienists believe that an astroid killed off the dinosaurs; some, like Dr. Robert Bakker, think the dinosaurs were either arlready gone or on the way to extintiona when the astreoid hit the earth. Oh, by the way, Dr. Bakker can also be called Rev. Bakker (he is an ordained minaster).:tiphat:

One thing, the Bible is not a science book. The Bible tells how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go. God gave us humans brains for that.

 

[tabycat]

There isn’t enough water on the earth to cover it in its entirety at the moment. Where did it all go?

I have asked the same basic question (several times) and have not gotten an answer yet.:bounce::crutches:

 

[tabycat]

I didn’t say it, infallible scientists did, who are part of the same group of scientists that tell you about an asteroid killing the dinosaurs and all those stories. These scientists are the ones who made you laugh, don’t underestimate them, they are professionals.

Did you read their article? Check the link:

Early Earth 'was covered in water’

You can check this one too, it’s the same news.

God’s clues are in His book too, not just in rocks eroded by time. I guess most Christians read better His book than geologist read His rocks. It all is a matter of reading, and scientists can misinterpret what they read too.

By the way, I’m still laughing.

 

[edwest2]

I have asked the same basic question (several times) and have not gotten an answer yet.:bounce::crutches:

Do you believe the Bible is a science book?

Peace,
Ed

 

[RobbyS]

By the way, I’m still laughing.

One can speculate that the Flood was an extraordinary event, and not just “local.” If the temperature of the earth increased rapidly over a short period of years, and caused the suddenly melting of the glaciers, it would have released huge amounts of moisture in the air and caused great turbulance. If it occured wherever there was a signifcant number of human beings. then it would have seemed to cover the whole earth. I add that such a story might have originated in events long before the emergence of the Mesopotamian civilization.