11 Feb 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasI will allow for the (If) God exist and is the creator of all in the universe than S(he) must be the one who set all of these laws (Scientific Laws) into motion. I understand right now in this present time I can't take person to God's house and be like see God lives here. However this does not disprove either. I agree with you on a point at least that supernatural is above or beyond normal nature and therefor can't be explained by science. (Or can some supernatural phenomenon be explained by science ?) I just don't see a total blank statement that Science and religion can never mix as being true thats all.
Because they deal with different matters.
Science deal with the laws of nature. Religion deals with supernaturals fenomena.
If religion was science, then why is not god proven? (The short answer.)
If you feel different: Tell me an area where science and religion really mix? I've asked it before, but I've never got a good answer.
Manny
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOriginally posted by robbie carrobie
oh but this is where you are wrong my dear illustrious Lord of all the great white and multi coloured sharks, for you see the matter is quite plain and vewy vewy simple, the Bible mentions the water cycle whereas there is not one iota of the mention of evolution. I shall refresh your memory now for a second time shall I? Here are the verses.
(Ec ...[text shortened]... se, from the bottom of the sea, but first, are you experienced? have you ever been experienced?
oh but this is where you are wrong my dear illustrious Lord of all the great white and multi coloured sharks, for you see the matter is quite plain and vewy vewy simple, the Bible mentions the water cycle whereas there is not one iota of the mention of evolution. I shall refresh your memory now for a second time shall I? Here are the verses.
I disagree. The meteorological explanation cannot be found anywhere in the bible.
They had some inkling that there was a reason that the sea didn't fill up. Your verses seem to imply something like the idea that the streams flowing into the sea are counter balanced by streams flowing in the opposite direction.
If you can find some verses that clearly relate to the sun evaporating sea water to form clouds which rain on land forming streams which run into the sea, then you will have a good case for agreeing with the meteorological explanation but rejecting the biological account of life. Until then, given that the only detail about rain cited from the bible on this thread has been figurative, and given that you don't believe in the literal truth of all of Genesis, the accusation of cherry picking still stands.
I do enjoy a bit of Hendrix though.
11 Feb 10
3 edits
lol, ok Shark dude, are you prepared to state that the ancient King is talking of a cycle or not? It does not suit you that he does not mention the actual meteorological process of evaporation, condensation and dissipation, but it matters not, he is talking of a cycle regarding water.
Shall i take my verse to the forum and lay them before the forum brothers that they may render up a decision? Dont make me go public on this one Lord of the Sharks, but i will if i have to! You'll be sowy!
yeah Jimi is awesome!
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOriginally posted by robbie carrobie
lol, ok Shark dude, are you prepared to state that the ancient King is talking of a cycle or not? It does not suit you that he does not mention the actual meteorological process of evaporation, condensation and dissipation, but it matters not, he is talking of a cycle regarding water.
Shall i take my verse to the forum and lay them before the foru ...[text shortened]... this one Lord of the Sharks, but i will if i have to! You'll be sowy!
yeah Jimi is awesome!
lol, ok Shark dude, are you prepared to state that the ancient King is talking of a cycle or not?
I don't think that's relevant. What seems clear is that there is no mention of the rain cycle, rather there are vague guesses about why the sea doesn't fill up.
It does not suit you that he does not mention the actual meteorological process of evaporation, condensation and dissipation, but it matters not, he is talking of a cycle regarding water.
What suits me is also irrelevant. What is clear for all to see is that there is no possibility of verifying the modern meteorological account scripturally any more than we can verify evolution scripturally. You might as well try to prove that the world is round musically. The bible mentions the diversity of life and that the sea doesn't fill up, but in neither case does it go into detail about precisely how these phenomena are to be explained. You cherry pick one, and reject the other and have given no coherent account as to why.
I think this is stalemate, do you agree? Time to clock off?
11 Feb 10
1 edit
i think we should let the forum decide, if the consensus of opinion is that it does not mention the water cycle, then so be it, if on the other hand the forum feels that there is sufficient rectitude to suggest that yes, there is clear evidence of a water cycle, then you shall make a recantation of your atheistic ways, embrace the way of the truth and live a long and happy and prosperous life, may your sons abound as the waves of the sea, your daughters blossom as the saffron of the desert! Good health to you!
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, we could ask the forum to decide whether or not you are guilty of cherry picking, but that would just be a recipe for more partisanship, and let's face it, neither of us would accept the verdict would we?
i think we should let the forum decide, if the consensus of opinion is that it does not mention the water cycle, then so be it, if on the other hand the forum feels that there is sufficient rectitude to suggest that yes, there is clear evidence of a water cycle, then you shall make a recantation of your atheistic ways, embrace the way of the truth an ...[text shortened]... the waves of the sea, your daughters blossom as the saffron of the desert! Good health to you!
So I think we should shake hands and agree to differ as usual, eh?
Perhaps the main problem is that we're both prone to lastwordism, long past the stage where the interesting debate has moved elsewhere. 🙂
11 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Lord Sharkwell if we could establish whether there is reference to a water cycle or otherwise you may then have grounds for stating that i am 'cherry picking', otherwise i shall be vindicated. I really do think that is a vivid and accurate description of the water cycle but i am also conscious that i dont want you to be forced to make a recantation. Therefore i am willing to let it go for the sake of peace. Wish you well, till we meet again in the great hall of Valhalla, to drink the mead of poetry and to be attended upon by pretty maidens - kind regards Robbie.
Well, we could ask the forum to decide whether or not you are guilty of cherry picking, but that would just be a recipe for more partisanship, and let's face it, neither of us would accept the verdict would we?
So I think we should shake hands and agree to differ as usual, eh?
Perhaps the main problem is that we're both prone to lastwordism, long past the stage where the interesting debate has moved elsewhere. 🙂
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHa ha ha...good one.
well if we could establish whether there is reference to a water cycle or otherwise you may then have grounds for stating that i am 'cherry picking', otherwise i shall be vindicated. I really do think that is a vivid and accurate description of the water cycle but i am also conscious that i dont want you to be forced to make a recantation. Therefor ...[text shortened]... , to drink the mead of poetry and to be attended upon by pretty maidens - kind regards Robbie.
Ok this will be my last on this thread. One of us has to walk away after all.
The bible is all over the place on rain and how it is that the sea doesn't overflow. We can all see that. What you see as references to what has subsequently been revealed by science as the rain cycle is just the typical 20/20 hindsight of a cherry picker, since there is no detail at all in scripture with which you can make a remotely credible case. You know that weather science doesn't impinge on your beliefs in the way that biology does. So you shamelessly accept the former but reject the latter. I don't blame you for being unable to give a viable defense of this bias since your position is transparently untenable. Poll forum members on this if you wish. You'll get your result if you play it right. Start with galveston and carry on from there. 🙂
A toast: to Robbie.
I wish you well. Until next time we play skittles....