Originally posted by @eladarScience does NOT deny there is a god or gods and it does NOT deny there is a (supernatural or natural) Creation account.
If science does not claim absolute truth, then how can it deny God and the Creation account.
The evidence doesn't logically contradict there being a god causing the big bang or a god guiding evolution.
There IS evidence (scientific proof, in fact) of big bang and evolution so the EVIDENCE, not the scientific methods or principles of obtaining that evidence, shows YOU PERSONAL 'Creation account', which isn't what most Christians would recognize as a correct or valid interpretation of the Bible but rather see as a very badly flawed one, as completely wrong.
It is NOT, as you keep falsely making out, the first principle of science that your religion (or any other particular religion) is wrong. The first principle of science, putting it rather simplistically here, is just go wherever the evidence points. It just happens that that evidence points against your flawed religious beliefs of what the Bible really says, not that of the majority of Christians.
Most Christians would tell you that science and the evidence does NOT deny God and the Creation account according to the Bible because the evidence is perfectly consistent of God, as in the one in the Bible, causing big bang and guiding evolution etc.
So your ineffective 'attack' isn't just against science but against mainstream Christianity and against the Christian religion.
Most Christians are wise enough to adapt their religious beliefs to any overwhelming totally irrefutable evidence rather than give themselves a hard time with stubbornly maintaining a laughable obviously false position such as the Earth being flat and not round etc. Why don't you?
22 Oct 17
Originally posted by @humyYour faulty interpretation of evidence is to blame.
Science does NOT deny there is a god or gods and it does NOT deny there is a (supernatural or natural) Creation account.
The evidence doesn't logically contradict there being a god causing the big bang or a god guiding evolution.
There IS evidence (scientific proof, in fact) of big bang and evolution so the EVIDENCE, not the scientific methods or principle ...[text shortened]... aughable obviously false position such as the Earth being flat and not round etc. Why don't you?
22 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @eladarThe things for which you denigrate what you think of as science, for example that science cannot prove that a miracle did not occur, do not pertain to science at all; your objections apply to a parody of science, a caricature of science.
If science does not claim absolute truth, then how can it deny God and the Creation account.
You talk out of both ends. You are dishonest and a degenerate. Either that or your IQ barely breaks 100.
What science claims is that the evidence does not support the claim that the universe, and the Earth, and all life, were created, as described in Genesis, by God, over a period of 6 days.
22 Oct 17
Originally posted by @moonbusYou are a fool. I did not say the creation account is science.
The things for which you denigrate what you think of as science, for example that science cannot prove that a miracle did not occur, do not pertain to science at all; your objections apply to a parody of science, a caricature of science.
What science claims is that the evidence does not support the claim that the universe, and the Earth, and all life, were created, as described in Genesis, by God, over a period of 6 days.
22 Oct 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @eladarno, interpretation of evidence in science, which equates with his and my interpretation of evidence, is not just opinion.
but your interpretation of evidence is just opinion.
Is the interpretation of evidence of round Earth in science just opinion?
22 Oct 17
Originally posted by @humyActually it is opiniin unless you can directly test and repeat it. If you did not see it happen, you are only guessing based on assumptions.
no, interpretation of evidence in science, which equates with his and my interpretation of evidence, is not just opinion.
Is the interpretation of evidence of round Earth in science just opinion?
But then you have demonstrated yourself too dim to understand this truth.
22 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarWell, you didn't see the risen Christ either, so we're even. Nothing but opinions here. LOL.
Actually it is opiniin unless you can directly test and repeat it. If you did not see it happen, you are only guessing based on assumptions.
But then you have demonstrated yourself too dim to understand this truth.
22 Oct 17
Originally posted by @moonbusI do not make claims about what you need to believe. I just make claims of the limited truth of what you believe.
Well, you didn't see the risen Christ either, so we're even. Nothing but opinions here. LOL.
You on the other hand demand that what you believe is true, and what I believe is false.
22 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @eladarI make no such demand. I just look at the evidence and draw the obvious conclusion. That you don't like that conclusion is no skin off my nose, but you evidently feel threatened by it.
I do not make claims about what you need to believe. I just make claims of the limited truth of what you believe.
You on the other hand demand that what you believe is true, and what I believe is false.