Astrophysicist believes Bible based on science (genesis, atheist, quote, faith)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What do you think of this astrophysicist who talks at length about how the Bible contains scientific information, to a degree not found in other ancient religious texts?
There is an interesting part where he describes a chance meeting an Atheistic physicist on an airplane, who turned out to have a series of Bible related questions which matched the exact sequential order in a book he had written answering the same questions.
They determined that their conversation's synchronicity had a chance of one in several billion.
(This part starts at 35:00)
A small problem. The firmament in the Genesis creation account is a hard solid dome as was the general belief in the ancient world. Of course most apologetic websites will deny that, but here's one that doesn't deny it.
Then there's the fact that geology disproves that there was ever a global flood. Then there's the matter of evolution . . .Adam and Eve were not the first humans, and they weren't created as full grown adults.
And I point all of that out that as a Christian. I know Hugh Ross's views. He's a day-age proponent and tries to reconcile the Genesis creation account with science. That can't be done.
What do you think of this astrophysicist who talks at length about how the Bible contains scientific information, to a degree not found in other ancient religious texts?
There is an interesting part where he describes a chance meeting an Atheistic physicist on an airplane, who turned out to have a series of Bible related questions which matched the exact sequential order in a book he had written answering the same questions. They determined that their conversation's synchronicity had a chance of one in several billion.
(This part starts at 35:00)
The problem with determining odds after the fact is that after the event the odds are 100% because it did happen. Anyway, it would be interesting to learn more about the background of this coincidence.
The problem with determining odds after the fact is that after the event the odds are 100% because it did happen. Anyway, it would be interesting to learn more about the background of this coincidence.
I think what's interesting is that the more "intellectual" types would be more fascinated by this. But to a common believer, it's just God at work doing normal, everyday miracles.
I think what's interesting is that the more "intellectual" types would be more fascinated by this. But to a common believer, it's just God at work doing normal, everyday miracles.
Could you explain what "everyday miracles" are? I've been alive nearly 30,000 "everydays". How'd I miss all those "everyday miracles"?
I think what's interesting is that the more "intellectual" types would be more fascinated by this. But to a common believer, it's just God at work doing normal, everyday miracles.
quite correct, Ozzy. Despite this being a "Scientist" being wheeled out as though he is an "Authority" on everything from Cosmology to evolutionary biology, I'll bet that all of this evidence can be countered, starting with the familiar error of odds against chance apologetic, which only works if one assumes a pre -intended outcome.
You see the problem? Godfaith screws the 'science' up from the start and this is why science and Godfaith do not mix. They can co -exist when kept apart, but when one meets the other it's mutual destruction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
It starts with faith. Then you will see them yourself. You certainly won't need me or anyone else to point them out.
Of course it does (sorry for all the smilies, but these are really hilarious fallacy -arguments); you need faith before these arguments look anything but delusionary. It's really remarkable how you innocently lay out the fallacies while thinking they are good arguments.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-24-2020 at 11:10 PM..
What do you think of this astrophysicist who talks at length about how the Bible contains scientific information, to a degree not found in other ancient religious texts?
He is outnumbered by astrophysicists who know better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
There is an interesting part where he describes a chance meeting an Atheistic physicist on an airplane, who turned out to have a series of Bible related questions which matched the exact sequential order in a book he had written answering the same questions.
They determined that their conversation's synchronicity had a chance of one in several billion.
If the opportunities for synchronization are over several billion, then it is almost inevitable a synchronized conversation will happen.
It starts with faith. Then you will see them yourself. You certainly won't need me or anyone else to point them out.
Ha, so if you have faith, you will misinterpret events as if they are miracles? Such as a doctor curing a patient, but you thank a god?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
quite correct, Ozzy. Despite this being a "Scientist" 
being wheeled out as though he is an "Authority" on everything from Cosmology to evolutionary biology, I'll bet that all of this evidence can be countered, starting with the familiar error of odds against chance apologetic, which only works if one assumes a pre -intended outcome.
