When you look up at the sky.........

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#91

Post by sarge » Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:40 am

Here's the thing:

If I reject out of hand the principal that all men are created equal, I can read To Kill A Mockingbird a million times and never understand why Atticus Finch is a hero.

Its the same with people who reject the principal that the Universe was created by a Higher Power that we are incapable of fully understanding when they read the Bible.


You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#92

Post by BillyBob66 » Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:02 pm

GregD wrote:Bill's contention in this and other threads is that one should believe the Bible because it has clear evidence of divine inspiration. My response has been that his evidence thus far fails to stand up to conventional scientific evaluation. Does anyone contend that Bill's evidence DOES stand up to conventional SCIENTIFIC evaluation?
Before others answer, could you define scientific evaluation?
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#93

Post by GregD » Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:39 pm

BillyBob66 wrote:
GregD wrote:Bill's contention in this and other threads is that one should believe the Bible because it has clear evidence of divine inspiration. My response has been that his evidence thus far fails to stand up to conventional scientific evaluation. Does anyone contend that Bill's evidence DOES stand up to conventional SCIENTIFIC evaluation?
Before others answer, could you define scientific evaluation?
I don't have a simple definition at the moment. At a minimum, every hypothesis of divine anything is rejected. And then there are the requirements for self consistency, completeness, and agreement with observations.

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#94

Post by sarge » Sun Dec 04, 2016 2:02 pm

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:
GregD wrote:Bill's contention in this and other threads is that one should believe the Bible because it has clear evidence of divine inspiration. My response has been that his evidence thus far fails to stand up to conventional scientific evaluation. Does anyone contend that Bill's evidence DOES stand up to conventional SCIENTIFIC evaluation?
Before others answer, could you define scientific evaluation?
I don't have a simple definition at the moment. At a minimum, every hypothesis of divine anything is rejected. And then there are the requirements for self consistency, completeness, and agreement with observations.
You're saying that every scientist that evaluates every theory that involves the possibility of divine intervention is automatically rejected?

That, I think, is a preposterous assumption, not backed up by fact----or even logic.

In order for that to be true, no scientist, anywhere, would adhere to any religious beleief that involves divine intervention or creation.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#95

Post by BillyBob66 » Sun Dec 04, 2016 2:17 pm

GregD wrote:......What Hodge/Mortensen object to, what Bill objects to, is very standard SCIENTIFIC analysis. This scientific method is biased against, arguably it explicitly excludes, explanations that invoke divine intervention at any point.
This is why I asked you in my most recent post to define scientific analyses and/or evaluation. I suppose that depending on what that definition is, I would say I do NOT object to standard scientific analysis. In fact, though it will probably give you a laugh, I consider myself at lest a bit of a scientist. My degrees are in anesthesia and the biological sciences, and after 36 years of actually administering anesthesia, and being required to attend a minimum of 20 hours continuing education in the field of anesthesia for each of those 36 years, and I assure you it was all very scientific. There was no art or basket making in those continuing ed classes, and darn little of it in the college classes leading up to the license that required continuing education. And I do not reject the vast majority of the science I have been taught.

It is true I reject some part of the science I have been taught(though I got good grades in it in order to get my degrees and license), I reject what I call pseudoscience. Does that mean I reject "very standard SCIENTIFIC analysis."? I don't believe I do. Scientific theories about what some think happened billions of years ago, which has not been observed then or now and which can not be put to the test, repeated nor predictions made from it ( all a part of scientific analysis, right?) are not automatically scientific fact, and claiming them as fact is what I object to.

Now when you say, as you have before, "This scientific method is biased against, arguably it explicitly excludes, explanations that invoke divine intervention at any point.", this really confuses me, and if required to be a scientist would disqualify me. But is that kind of bias really science? Why would any one be so biased against any one position, as opposed to just letting the facts and results of testing and evaluation fall where they may? Does science have blinders on, which will keep them from seeing facts that point to positions they hate? That sounds more like religion and blind faith than science. So any evidence someone like me might provide will be tossed out, even ridiculed without ever being looked at, simply because if true an explanation of how it could be will lead to places the powers that be do NOT want to go. That does not sound like science to me, even if it is the position of most scientists today. So if I present evidence that Moses(who never existed anyway, right?) commanded his people to be quarantined if they had certain medical conditions or had been around someone with these conditions or had touched a dead body, or they had to wash after certain contacts before entering the camp, or they had to expose to flame any pot a sick person had been using, or he commanded them to go outside the camp to evacuate their bowels and take a little shovel with them to bury it etc etc etc, ( sounds like a modern public health officer doesn't it? ), well a good question is how he came to know such things? ( I mean other than what he said, that God told him and gave no reasons for why). Unless some one can come up with a plausible explanation for why all of these prophets seem to know things they had no right to know, then other means of knowing it might be considered. But you are saying that by definition, nothing supernatural will be considered. That bias does not sound like the scientific method to me. Galileo, Pascal, Boyle( I remember Boyle's laws from chemistry class in college!), Newton and so many others did not have such a bias, and they are renowned scientists. ( yes, all of these men varied greatly in their specific take on Christianity, but the point is they did not believe science precluded a creator) And there are still plenty today who are obviously scientists and also Christians, which probably means at least some of them do not accept everything that claims to be science:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... technology

"“The laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics.” - Galileo Galilei (Il Saggiatore, 1623)"

Pascal's wager.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/histor ... ewton.html
"Newton’s understanding of God came primarily from the Bible, which he studied for days and weeks at a time. He took special interest in miracles and prophecy, calculating dates of Old Testament books and analyzing their texts to discover their authorship. In a manuscript on rules for interpreting prophecy, Newton noted the similar goals of the scientist and the prophecy expositor: simplicity and unity. He condemned the “folly of interpreters who foretell times and things by prophecy,” since the purpose of prophecy was to demonstrate God’s providence in history when “after [prophecies] were fulfilled, they might be interpreted by events.”". Hey, sounds like my kind of guy! ;)

GregD wrote:
johnspenn wrote: I agree. SCIENCE is an enterprise undertaken by men in an attempt to understand the physical world. SCIENCE is incapable of coming to any position.

The practice of science is very limited in scope.

Also don't forget, what you refer to as SCIENCE is not an entity unto itself, as you seem to imply by your reference to and dare I say reverence of it. It is simply a tool used by SCIENTISTS, who are men, like you and me with like qualities, passions and fallabilities.

Is science useful as a way of gathering information and knowing things about our physical world? When properly applied, yes of course.
Up to this point we seem to be in agreement.

johnspenn wrote: Is SCIENCE (as you like to refer to it) the only way we can know anything with certainty? No, not by a long shot.
It is my understanding that you dispute that that Moses did not write the Torah, that Earth is over 4 billion years old, and that man is a product of evolution. But what exactly do you dispute? Do you dispute that these are the results of scientific analyses? If so, why? Do you contend that the science was performed incorrectly, or that the science is inconclusive? Or is it simply that, in your assessment, science has failed to come to the correct results which you happen to know by other means?
If you were asking me, I would probably choose : I contend that the science was performed incorrectly, or that the science is inconclusive. What I would probably actually choose, if it were a choice, is that science often declares as fact things it in reality has no way of knowing. Theories are so often simply accepted as fact. As in your example that a religeous leader of the Israelites named Moses not only did not part the Red Sea(actually of course God did it through him), but that he did not write the Torah or even exist. Just like even if I reject Christ and the Bible tomorrow I am not going to be able to accept a theory as irrational(IMO) as evolution, if I was a Buddhist I would have to be asking: " How do these folks make such statements as that, i.e. Moses never existed? Based on what evidence, other than just their personal theory and desires? They read a document 3000+ years after the fact and decide Moses never even existed, never mind those dumb ass Israelites/Jews and what they thought for 3400 years. They must be right that Moses did not exist, because they are really smart. But I don't know if that counts as scientific method.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#96

Post by BillyBob66 » Sun Dec 04, 2016 2:51 pm

sarge wrote:
GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:
Before others answer, could you define scientific evaluation?
I don't have a simple definition at the moment. At a minimum, every hypothesis of divine anything is rejected. And then there are the requirements for self consistency, completeness, and agreement with observations.
You're saying that every scientist that evaluates every theory that involves the possibility of divine intervention is automatically rejected?

That, I think, is a preposterous assumption, not backed up by fact----or even logic.

In order for that to be true, no scientist, anywhere, would adhere to any religious beleief that involves divine intervention or creation.
Though I know it exists, the bald faced bias in that statement blows me away. It sounds more like something a tyrannical religious leader might come up with. Like a Pope saying to Galileo "nope, you can't say that, we don't care about your evidence". No, maybe that is not a very good comparison, as no one is- yet - threatening to lock me up or burn me at the stake if I don't retract my word's about in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, or even more troublesome my beliefs about Jesus.. Still, it sure doesn't sound like the scientific method to be so closed to where the evidence might lead. Makes me think of when the medical scientists of the day(late 1800s) ruined Semmelweiss' life because he (like Moses ;) ) thought his students should wash their hands after touching a dead body ( autopsies ) before they went to the OB ward and examined the mom's in labor. And then had such spectacular results, many times fewer women dying from child birth fever, but those men of medical science ran him out of town. They did not want anyone confusing them with the facts! Plus, they did not want their authority questioned. They said ( had a strong bias that) it was useless to wash your hands, end of discussion!
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#97

Post by GregD » Sun Dec 04, 2016 3:30 pm

Bill -

And you say we never make progress.

My reading of your remarks is that you understand my assertion about science, although you disagree that it is correct. If so, at least on this one point we agree on the point of disagreement. In my book that is an important accomplishment.

It is true that many scientists are also religious. It is my understanding that many of them experience no tension between their profession and religion. Nevertheless, in their scientific work they do not advance hypotheses that include divine intervention and they don't use the Bible as the answer key to support their hypotheses. In your technical training was there ever a point where it said, more-or-less, do it this way because God said so? (These remarks are not intended to change your mind, just to close out discussion of this point for now. We still disagree.)

With regard to your assertion in the OP, it is "dead in the water" until you can reconcile your position with DiMattei's alternate interpretation of that text and also with the adjacent text which states that the vault also contains the stars. Please elaborate on your criticism of DiMattei's interpretation, and take your time figuring out how the rest of the text fits into your hypothesis.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#98

Post by GregD » Sun Dec 04, 2016 3:34 pm

BillyBob66 wrote:
sarge wrote:
GregD wrote:
I don't have a simple definition at the moment. At a minimum, every hypothesis of divine anything is rejected. And then there are the requirements for self consistency, completeness, and agreement with observations.
You're saying that every scientist that evaluates every theory that involves the possibility of divine intervention is automatically rejected?

That, I think, is a preposterous assumption, not backed up by fact----or even logic.

In order for that to be true, no scientist, anywhere, would adhere to any religious beleief that involves divine intervention or creation.
Though I know it exists, the bald faced bias in that statement blows me away.
AND we teach this stuff to our children in schools!


EDIT: One clarification. The SCIENTIST is not rejected. But any hypothesis that involves divine intervention is rejected until it is re-worked to remove the divine stuff. Also, don't take my word for it; ask other scientists.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#99

Post by GregD » Sun Dec 04, 2016 3:41 pm

Image

User avatar
johnspenn
Reactions:
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:38 am
Location: Marietta, GA
Hammock: DIY TCF
Tarp: KNT12
Suspension: Whoopie/MSH
Insulation: MAMW/UGQ 20*
Contact:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#100

Post by johnspenn » Sun Dec 04, 2016 4:01 pm

GregD wrote:
johnspenn wrote: I agree. SCIENCE is an enterprise undertaken by men in an attempt to understand the physical world. SCIENCE is incapable of coming to any position.

The practice of science is very limited in scope.

Also don't forget, what you refer to as SCIENCE is not an entity unto itself, as you seem to imply by your reference to and dare I say reverence of it. It is simply a tool used by SCIENTISTS, who are men, like you and me with like qualities, passions and fallabilities.

Is science useful as a way of gathering information and knowing things about our physical world? When properly applied, yes of course.
Up to this point we seem to be in agreement.

johnspenn wrote: Is SCIENCE (as you like to refer to it) the only way we can know anything with certainty? No, not by a long shot.
It is my understanding that you dispute that that Moses did not write the Torah, that Earth is over 4 billion years old, and that man is a product of evolution. But what exactly do you dispute? Do you dispute that these are the results of scientific analyses? If so, why? Do you contend that the science was performed incorrectly, or that the science is inconclusive? Or is it simply that, in your assessment, science has failed to come to the correct results which you happen to know by other means?
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.

I believe that Moses wrote the Torah, as you refer to it. You seem to believe that science has somehow proven Moses did not write the Torah. Is that your claim?

If so, then I would need to review the methods used by the scientists in question to reach this conclusion, keeping in mind that science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. What observations were made concerning the writing of the Torah? What experiments were conducted to determine who did or did not write the Torah? Are these experiments conclusive? Have they allowed for all of the variables involved? Have they been repeated with success by other scientists?

These are some of the questions I'd ask if someone were to claim what you seem to have claimed. My inclination is to think, at this point, that the enterprise of science has little to say of the authorship of the Torah.

User avatar
johnspenn
Reactions:
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:38 am
Location: Marietta, GA
Hammock: DIY TCF
Tarp: KNT12
Suspension: Whoopie/MSH
Insulation: MAMW/UGQ 20*
Contact:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#101

Post by johnspenn » Sun Dec 04, 2016 4:09 pm

GregD wrote:
sarge wrote:
GregD wrote:
Indeed science is fallible. But it does have a correction mechanism and in fact has long since replaced those hypotheses with others that work far better.
Well, then.

Lets use the science books for the understanding of science, keeping out minds open that things may change as we come to know more about science.

And then read the Bible for an understanding of God, keeping our minds open that things may change as we come to know more about God.
John and Bill don't agree with that. Neither, I imagine, would followers of non-Christian faiths.
Please refrain from deciding what I do and do not agree with. I happen to agree with Sarge's statement as written, even if he and I don't see eye to eye on everything. I've learned much following that principle with both science textbooks and with the Bible.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#102

Post by GregD » Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:52 pm

johnspenn wrote:
GregD wrote:
sarge wrote:
Well, then.

Lets use the science books for the understanding of science, keeping out minds open that things may change as we come to know more about science.

And then read the Bible for an understanding of God, keeping our minds open that things may change as we come to know more about God.
John and Bill don't agree with that. Neither, I imagine, would followers of non-Christian faiths.
Please refrain from deciding what I do and do not agree with. I happen to agree with Sarge's statement as written, even if he and I don't see eye to eye on everything. I've learned much following that principle with both science textbooks and with the Bible.
I was expressing my understanding of what you agree with and trusting that you would correct me if I was inaccurate. My understanding was based on this remark:
johnspenn wrote:This is true. However my conviction is that A: The writing of the Bible is supernaturally inspired by the creator of the unverse, thus B: where it addresses science, geology, astrology, and/or history, it is correct.
First, did you mean astronomy where you wrote astrology? Second, how do you reconcile the remarks in Genesis on the creation of the world with the current standard models in Astronomy, Geology, and Biology?

User avatar
johnspenn
Reactions:
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:38 am
Location: Marietta, GA
Hammock: DIY TCF
Tarp: KNT12
Suspension: Whoopie/MSH
Insulation: MAMW/UGQ 20*
Contact:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#103

Post by johnspenn » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:28 pm

GregD wrote:
johnspenn wrote:
GregD wrote:
John and Bill don't agree with that. Neither, I imagine, would followers of non-Christian faiths.
Please refrain from deciding what I do and do not agree with. I happen to agree with Sarge's statement as written, even if he and I don't see eye to eye on everything. I've learned much following that principle with both science textbooks and with the Bible.
I was expressing my understanding of what you agree with and trusting that you would correct me if I was inaccurate. My understanding was based on this remark:
johnspenn wrote:This is true. However my conviction is that A: The writing of the Bible is supernaturally inspired by the creator of the unverse, thus B: where it addresses science, geology, astrology, and/or history, it is correct.
First, did you mean astronomy where you wrote astrology? Second, how do you reconcile the remarks in Genesis on the creation of the world with the current standard models in Astronomy, Geology, and Biology?
I did mean astronomy. My apologies. However it is also my conviction that the Bible is correct where it does address astrology.

As to the second part of your question, I hardly know where to begin. Honestly that is too much to delve in to in a forum/format such as this.

I'll make an attempt at a start however. As we know, Gen 1:1 states that "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."

It seems to me that the current standard model of cosmology agrees with this statement. Since the early 1900's when scientists (Hubble, I believe) discovered the universe seems to be expanding based on the redshift/doppler effect, the "Big Bang" or standard model of cosmology has been developed and widely accepted. However, science only takes us so far in this endeavor, and as you have previously stated any kind of divine intervention that hasn't been observed and documented cannot be included in the results of scientific testing. So we understand that the universe must have had an ultimate beginning. Because science can take us that far and no further, we must rely on human reasoning at that point.

From one of my previous posts with a little editing: "In the case of the Big Bang, to put it simply, a Big Bang requires a Big Banger. IOW according to the principle of cause and effect, there has to be a cause to achieve a "Big Bang". According to science, the Big bang was the initial event from which our whole universe (space, time, matter and energy) originated. Here's a simple philosophical argument to illustrate.

1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
2. The universe (the set of all known physical time, space, matter and energy) began to exist. (Big Bang)
3. Because time, space, energy and matter all began to exist at the beginning of the universe, the cause of the universe must be:
-uncaused (because literally nothing physical existed to effect a cause)
-timeless (or eternal, because prior to the initial event physical time didn't exist)
-immaterial (not composed of physical matter/energy)
-personal (because by definition the creation had to be a deliberate act and not a natural process)
-and obviously immensely powerful. (Just look up, and wonder!)
We generally refer to a being who possesses these traits, whether real or imagined as God."

Simply put, the Bible states the universe was created, and science points to that as being true, albeit indirectly because of the limitations thereof.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#104

Post by BillyBob66 » Sun Dec 04, 2016 8:35 pm

GregD wrote:Bill -

And you say we never make progress.

My reading of your remarks is that you understand my assertion about science, although you disagree that it is correct. If so, at least on this one point we agree on the point of disagreement. In my book that is an important accomplishment.

It is true that many scientists are also religious. It is my understanding that many of them experience no tension between their profession and religion. Nevertheless, in their scientific work they do not advance hypotheses that include divine intervention and they don't use the Bible as the answer key to support their hypotheses. In your technical training was there ever a point where it said, more-or-less, do it this way because God said so? (These remarks are not intended to change your mind, just to close out discussion of this point for now. We still disagree.)
Most assuredly they did. In that case God's name was Dr. so and so.
GregD wrote: With regard to your assertion in the OP, it is "dead in the water" until you can reconcile your position with DiMattei's alternate interpretation of that text and also with the adjacent text which states that the vault also contains the stars. Please elaborate on your criticism of DiMattei's interpretation, and take your time figuring out how the rest of the text fits into your hypothesis.
Well, in your opinion it is dead in the water until I reconcile his alternative interpretation, but I already gave you my reasons why I reject the statements of this non-believer about what the ancients thought about where the rain came from and the clear blue sky being the waters above. And that the layer that separates the waters above also contains the waters above, which are not separated as they fall into the waters below. He is just grasping at straws. I reject his ideas as BS and once again a scientist (I suppose he is?) speaking about things he can not possibly know and assuming it is proven fact because he says it. There is a whole bunch of that.

I also already told you, at length and immediately after I saw it, that I can not provide an explanation for the adjacent text/translations that say the sun, moon and stars are in this layer. This does not make sense to me in relation with the original text quoted, but that would be with me assuming that the layer was our atmosphere, which seems to make sense but is not automatically so. Since it does not say ALL of the stars are in the layer, then the waters that are above I suppose could still be separated, as the waters that have been discovered are 12 billion light years from us. But I have already conceded to you that I can not make these verses work with the original verses, and this point goes to you, unless I can find an explanation somewhere. I am not going to obtusely argue that the passage does not say what it appears to say. Consider it dead in the water if you wish, even though the waters are still separated from the waters. That is not a problem as there are many more to be discussed and that already have been discussed. Have you had time yet to join in over on the "what did Moses know and when did he know it" thread? There were no comments other than mine last time I checked.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#105

Post by BillyBob66 » Sun Dec 04, 2016 8:48 pm

GregD wrote:Image
But not if evolution just occurs all by itself, by accident, EDIT: by life spontaneously generating from lifeless material. You already have your miracle in the equation. Surely the odds of a male evolving about the same time as a female with all matching parts and desires so that sexual reproduction can now begin are in the miracle category.
About the same for the odds of evolving by accident, no designer, a pancreas or a heart to match veins and arteries. Who nees miracles if you can routinely break odds like that?
Last edited by BillyBob66 on Sun Dec 04, 2016 8:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

Post Reply

Return to “Off-Topic Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest