Originally posted by josephw
[b]Sometimes questions can be misleading. They can reveal a misunderstanding of the truth, and essentially lead one away from it.

"Nor has Christianity offered convincing answers to the questions of how the universe was formed and how humanity came about!"

It's not Christianity you should be listening to.

"So why not look at "science" in ...[text shortened]... an unsettling word in this context. Believing God isn't a guessing game. God's Word is true.[/b][/b]

I'm getting the impression that there's some confusion about terms in a number of the posts. A distinction should be drawn between empirical science and philosophy. Some of the questions people are saying science can't answer, such as "what is the meaning of life?" are more within philosophy's domain than science's. I'm also wondering what you mean by "the word of God".

If there is an empirical result, in other words an experiment which has been repeated enough times that we can be as certain as we are of anything that the result is true, which contradicts what is said to be the word of God, and God is infallible, then it isn't the word of God.

If a theory contradicts what is believed to be the word of God then there are three possibilities: the atheists are right, the consequences of this are simple and obvious and don't require further discussion; the second possibility is that the theory is wrong; and the third is that what was supposed to be the word of God wasn't or was misinterpreted or taken literally when it shouldn't have been.

In physics, in general, theories are not so much wrong as approximate. It's rare that a theory being superseded has metaphysical consequences, one case was the transition from classical to quantum mechanics. Something like the big bang model is based on the observation that the universe is expanding and extrapolating backwards. The observation is basically irrefutable, unless you want to argue with the Doppler effect. The theory that the universe started then is however up for grabs as there is no way of testing that statement. If the big bang theory is wrong it means that the universe pre-existed that dense stage and we live in some form of cyclic universe. A 6,000 year old universe is ruled out. Unless you are going to claim that it was created to look as if it appeared in a big bang.

If God exists then the word of God is infallible. This is not the same statement as the Bible being literally true, assuming by the "Word of God" you mean the Bible. If the Bible is contradicted by straightforward empirical evidence then the only conclusion, assuming God exists, is either that not all of the Bible is the Word of God or that it should not be read literally.

Originally posted by JS357
On this date in history, RJ and JS agree on something: bg is a hypothesis.

Sorry, I left off the "a" for abiogenesis which is the hypothesis and biogenesis is the law. Abiogenesis is the new word that evolutionists made up to replace "spontaneous generation" which has been proven wrong by science.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Sorry, I left off the "a" for abiogenesis which is the hypothesis and biogenesis is the law. Abiogenesis is the new word that evolutionists made up to replace "spontaneous generation" which has been proven wrong by science.

Oh well I also agree that abiogenesis is not yet been proven to be a scientific theory so we are still good.

Originally posted by JS357
Oh well I also agree that abiogenesis is not yet been proven to be a scientific theory so we are still good.

Yes, abiogenesis is what I meant to type. 😏

Originally posted by JS357
Oh well I also agree that abiogenesis is not yet been proven to be a scientific theory so we are still good.

Various hypothesis about how and where abiogenesis happened have not yet graduated to theories.
But the fact that abiogenesis did happen, is undeniable scientific fact. It is also accepted by creationists as having happened, as turning clay into human beings is by definition, abiogenesis even if a miracle was involved.

Originally posted by JS357
"Why? Why not just see it for what it is? It's just science! But if a scientist produces a theory that contradicts the Word of God we then have a problem. "

That is the point of putting the "/" in "science/theism".

The heliocentric theory was once thought by some to contradict the Word of God. Did it contradict the Word of God?

Could you state a current scientific theory that contradicts the Word of God?

"Could you state a current scientific theory that contradicts the Word of God?"

Evolution. That man evolved. Direct contradiction.

Originally posted by FMF
Misleading? I have not attempted to mislead anyone into thinking that the OP is anything other than my own point of view.

Didn't mean to mean it that YOU were being misleading, just how the comments and questions are worded.

Your point of view is that the Bible is unreliable, which influences your opinion to the contrary view.

Originally posted by josephw
Didn't mean to mean it that YOU were being misleading, just how the comments and questions are worded.

I worded my writing ~ my comments and questions ~ so that it would reflect my opinion and perhaps stimulate discussion. There is nothing that is "misleading" in the OP.

Originally posted by josephw
Your point of view is that the Bible is unreliable, which influences your opinion to the contrary view.

My point of view is that if people think the world is only a few thousand old as a result of [what I see as ancient allegories] in the Bible, and they think this 'version' trumps what humans have managed to find out about actual age of the earth, then they are selling themselves short with an unreliable and inaccurate perspective on the true nature of what is supposed to be their God figure's creation.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Could you state a current scientific theory that contradicts the Word of God?"

Evolution. That man evolved. Direct contradiction.[/b]

Well, I'm not going to argue the point here. I didn't know where you stood. Now I do. So, thanks.

Originally posted by FMF
I worded my writing ~ my comments and questions ~ so that it would reflect my opinion and perhaps stimulate discussion. There is nothing that is "misleading" in the OP.

Well then, it must be that you just don't get it!

Originally posted by FMF
My point of view is that if people think the world is only a few thousand old as a result of [what I see as ancient allegories] in the Bible, and they think this 'version' trumps what humans have managed to find out about actual age of the earth, then they are selling themselves short with an unreliable and inaccurate perspective on the true nature of what is supposed to be their God figure's creation.

What is unreliable is the human element in the matter of the age of the earth, the universe or any other created thing. The same science that says the universe is so many years old is the same science that says biological life on this planet is millions of years old, and that is bogus science because God made man and all living creatures only some six thousand years ago.

Don't believe it. Your choice.

Originally posted by josephw
What is unreliable is the human element in the matter of the age of the earth, the universe or any other created thing. The same science that says the universe is so many years old is the same science that says biological life on this planet is millions of years old, and that is bogus science because God made man and all living creatures only some six thousand years ago.

Don't believe it. Your choice.

What about the unreliable human element in relation to the writing and interpretation of your bible?

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Could you state a current scientific theory that contradicts the Word of God?"

Evolution. That man evolved. Direct contradiction.[/b]

YES.

I agree with this.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Various hypothesis about how and where abiogenesis happened have not yet graduated to theories.
But the fact that abiogenesis did happen, is undeniable scientific fact. It is also accepted by creationists as having happened, as turning clay into human beings is by definition, abiogenesis even if a miracle was involved.

I think a creationist might say that the first life on earth came from the living God who had no beginning, whether He started with mud or not.

But to the point of the OP, science stops when the super-natural is invoked as an explanation. If God were recognized by science, it would be treated as a natural object, to be approached using the 4-steps of science (that I learned): to observe, understand, predict, and control.

Among the first observations would be to ascertain whether it is a person. "Control" sounds haughty, so maybe the phrase should be, if it has been ascertained to be a person, "to influence favorably."

"Worship" is not one of the steps of science, at present. This is part of the "/".

Edit: There is something like worship found in the awe that the natural universe sometimes evokes.