Science will not win over Religion

[basics]

Still avoiding the problem that the evidence shows no Noah in your young earth framework or any really.

No evidence eh? Well how do you account for all the fossils found high up on mountain ranges? How do you account for the number having been found to have living tissue still on them? Still, if you want your ancestor to be a monkey, that's fine, but I'll settle for what God says about Noah being mine.

[conon394]

No evidence eh? Well how do you account for all the fossils found high up on mountain ranges? How do you account for the number having been found to have living tissue still on them? Still, if you want your ancestor to be a monkey, that's fine, but I'll settle for what God says about Noah being mine.

Geological up lift in the first place. Pretty simple I do believe that gets covered in junior high(*). Fossils with dead tissue you mean. Very lucky conditions when the fossil was created and since than. It no way confounds the data on their age.

*The St Elias Mountais are rising by 3mm or more a year the Himalayas in some case much faster

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=6432

[basics]

conon394,

Well if that is the case then surely their size would be much greater if billions of years of their existence is taken into account? I mean six hundred million odd years times 3 or 4mm surely would make them higher than they are today?

[conon394]

conon394,

Well if that is the case then surely their size would be much greater if billions of years of their existence is taken into account? I mean six hundred million odd years times 3 or 4mm surely would make them higher than they are today?

So you are being deliberately obtuse? The Himalayas are only 50 to 70 million years old,They are acted by erosion as well. the oldest ranges at ~3 billions are low since they in generally have no activity causing up lift and just sustain erosion.

[basics]

conon394,

No, all the mountains are the same age as all other things on this planet that make this planet, 6,000 odd years.

[Akar]

Here's how this conversation always goes with Basics;

Basics: Science is wrong

Other person: Explains why the science is right and why Basics has fundamentally misunderstood the point

Basics: lol well the bible says it's not so you

I don't know why anyone bothers trying to explain anything to you when you just say "nuh uh, the bible" to everything.

[conon394]

I do it while I do my morning round of work. Three monitors are useful for at least one diversion. Its too early to have music on and I cant really focus with a show or video running.

[basics]

Akar,

Where science is wrong is where men put their evaluation of it. God is science, the true science, why? Because from His word we find many scientific facts that only He could know. He made every scientific Law known to man otherwise where did these laws come from?

[conon394]

Because from His word we find many scientific facts that only He could know

Glad you are not my doctor. But your list is?

He made every scientific Law known to man otherwise where did these laws come from?

Careful observation of the natural world and repeated testing of the said assertions.

[basics]

conon394,

He told us the earth was round, that fresh water was also a cleanser, Job 26:7. He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.
Job 26:8. He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight.
Job 28: 5. The earth, from which food comes, is transformed below as by fire. He also talks of the need for a doctor if sick or pregnant.

Yes, these Laws became known by careful observation because they were already all there.

[conon394]

"He told us the earth was round, that fresh water was also a cleanser, Job 26:7"

Err no. Not in 26.7

"He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing"

Poetical and all but not a round earth.

"Job 26:8. He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight."

Again poetic and all but not science and more less meaningless. Umm thay do burst you know rain?

"28:5"?

"The earth, from which food comes,
is transformed below as by fire;"

Err umm and that is not science that is a general observation. It does not ell how to say systemically improve that process. So sorry poetry not science.

Yes, these Laws became known by careful observation because they were already all there.

Err not via the Bible they have not.

[basics]

conon394,

When I put in the quotes from Job I should have separated my first two comments from these quotes so I apologise for my mistake. Nonetheless what are scientific facts are there. How was it observational to think the earth was a circle all those years ago? Did man not believe the earth was flat until ships proved that wrong?

[conon394]

conon394,

When I put in the quotes from Job I should have separated my first two comments from these quotes so I apologise for my mistake. Nonetheless what are scientific facts are there. How was it observational to think the earth was a circle all those years ago? Did man not believe the earth was flat until ships proved that wrong?

Job does not say the earth is a globe.

[basics]

Job does not say the earth is a globe.

In Isaiah 40:22 and Job 26:7 the referrals are to the earth being round and in suspension just exactly as it is. So, what's the problem?

[conon394]

In Isaiah 40:22 and Job 26:7 the referrals are to the earth being round and in suspension just exactly as it is. So, what's the problem?

Neither imply a sphere, or any understanding of the Earth in space. Just poetics. Certainly nothing half so close to the mark as Democritus.

In any case Genesis 1:16 a people who had no ideal the moon was not a light but simply reflecting light. Surly if dictated by god he would have said I have made great light and a mirror for you in the dark or some such. Stars but no planets?

Taken together Anaximander, Democritus and Epicurus hit very close to the mark. Your version of christian belief is very much in debt to Plato and Aristotle.

[basics]

conon394,

Afraid not my ole fella, my Christianity comes from knowing Jesus Christ paid for my sins at a cross on which He died and rose from the grave in which His dead body was put. I know Him but I don't know the others.

[conon394]

Afraid not my ole fella, my Christianity comes from knowing Jesus Christ paid for my sins at a cross on which He died and rose from the grave in which His dead body was put. I know Him but I don't know the others.

The First three were philosophers who actually produced real theories about the world based on on observable facts. The second two of course produced theories that had a profound impact on you particular understanding of the faith you profess. Not so much as Augustine and Calvin such that end up being a dualist

In case you deflected again the OT provides no evidence at all that the authors had much a grasp of the mechanics of the Solar system and really they did not care since that was the point of what they were writing. Thus weird attempt to suggest scientific facts of the poetics of Job are flat

[basics]

conon394,

And I would maintain that unless the three you speak of were born again of the Spirit of God they knew nothing about creation.

[conon394]

conon394,

And I would maintain that unless the three you speak of were born again of the Spirit of God they knew nothing about creation.

Err OK??? Thing is they were remarkably better at describing the mechanics of the nature world than the bible so going have vote them and no some obscure Iron age nomads. And the collection of religious text they never really agree on.

[basics]

conon394,

Oh they might well have thought they knew the mechanics of nature but the One Who designed it knew the actualities of how all things work.