Science confirms the Bible?

[fr0d0]

That's at least part of what Genesis is, is it not? Why bother trying to explain anything about the origin of the world?

The book doesn't try to explain anything about the origins of the world. It uses current (ancient) cosmology as it's language to explain purpose, Gods purpose.

The ancient cosmology is precisely that. Nothing more.

[The Grand Nudger]

The book doesn't try to explain anything about the origins of the world. It uses current (ancient) cosmology as it's language to explain purpose, Gods purpose.

The ancient cosmology is precisely that. Nothing more.

-the interpretation of those who understand precisely how ridiculous the explanation offered is. Good for you. I wonder what people will bullshit themselves about when "purpose" is no longer an option?

[Walking Void]

Then you're only interested in current science?

Science constantly moves. I'm not saying that I think that the bible is concerned with science, but it does record what people in history held to be their best understanding of the material universe.

What's more worrying is that you think it is a science book.

Current science? What is that? I am only interested in what is true and false. Truth being what happens. A falsity being what does not happen.

We get falsities when people make assumptions.

If I EVER thought the bible was a science book then it would have lacked much of its content such as stating that a man named Jesus met "demons" called Legion (Ghost Rider). Jesus sent Legion into various pigs which drowned in a nearby river.

The deductive reasoning stupefies.

[Minimalist]

The book doesn't try to explain anything about the origins of the world

I'd like your explanation better if it were true, Frods, but the sad fact is that the world is overrun with assholes ( like the one below) who think that it is factual.

https://www.christiancourier.com/article...-important

When men see an alleged conflict between the Bible and science, they need to be patient — and wait for “science” to catch up with the Words of divine revelation!

Shitheads like this give the rest of you shitheads a bad name!

[The Grand Nudger]

I like Frod's explanation better as well...unfortunately, it's wrong for the same reasons as the explanation offered by the gentleman waiting for science to "catch cup".

[fr0d0]

Please state how then Rhythm. You know how we hate people talking out of their assess around here.

---

Current science? What is that? I am only interested in what is true and false. Truth being what happens. A falsity being what does not happen.

So now you think that science and history are the same thing?

Current science is what we best explain things with. Past science we disregard as superceded. Future science, likewise, will trump what we currently understand. That's how science works.

Science offers no absolutes, like truth.

[Minimalist]

Science offers no absolutes, like truth.

Neither does religion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Please state how then Rhythm. You know how we hate people talking out of their assess around here.

Both are based in vaporous nothing. He's waiting for science to catch up because he has jack shit - you insist that it just must be "purpose" because -you- have jack shit. Both of you wish to excuse the text (clearly you both realize that it needs excusing) - and both of you plan to do so via the same mechanism...bare assertion of ridiculous garbage.

Clear enough?

[Walking Void]

Please state how then Rhythm. You know how we hate people talking out of their assess around here.

---

Current science? What is that? I am only interested in what is true and false. Truth being what happens. A falsity being what does not happen.

So now you think that science and history are the same thing?

Current science is what we best explain things with. Past science we disregard as superceded. Future science, likewise, will trump what we currently understand. That's how science works.

Science offers no absolutes, like truth.

Thanks,



By the way if You noticed the "false" context of my last comment it means people can disprove a truth.

Did I take a stance and support objective truth or did I not comment on that? I did not comment on that. Things are known to be true until shown otherwise. Political mechanisms are not a tool, yours is to put words in my mouth.

[littleendian]

Science offers no absolutes, like truth.

In a world that exists only in relative terms, maybe, just maybe that's a good thing.

Thinking there was an absolute good leads to bullshit like "God is on our side" and the terrible consequences of such thinking. Realizing that "good" is a relative term, that my good can be someone elses bad, has a lot more to do with reality than absolute religious "truths", which btw have no proof either, they're merely axioms that don't even make sense.

I say: GO SCIENCE!