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.
So the alternative is to believe what? What a MAN says about the flood? And you believe what the MAN says....why? Because other MEN have taught him and say he's smart?
So the alternative is to believe what? What a MAN says about the flood? And you believe what the MAN says....why? Because other MEN have taught him and say he's smart?
The alternative is to believe the science which can be reproduced and proved.
The Bible, which is "God-breathed", says otherwise.
So what? The science that has proven itself , that makes predictions that come true, that you use to complain and protest scientific findings with , says it didn’t happen .
The Bible also says the Sun stood still in the sky, a physical impossibility, and that donkeys talked . So the Bible fails when it comes to being taken literally.
One has proven itself in testing, one has disproven itself in its claims .
So what? The science that has proven itself , that makes predictions that come true, that you use to complain and protest scientific findings with , says it didn’t happen .
It has? And no scientist has ever contradicted a previous scientist? Or proven him/her wrong?
Quote:
The Bible also says the Sun stood still in the sky, a physical impossibility, and that donkeys talked . So the Bible fails when it comes to being taken literally.
It has? And no scientist has ever contradicted a previous scientist? Or proven him/her wrong?
Ok? and?
That is the difference between science and believing the Bible is literal. With science we are still learning and when we learn something new what we learn changes.
Those who beleive the Bible is to be taken literal won't let anything change their beliefs on it.
That is the difference between science and believing the Bible is literal. With science we are still learning and when we learn something new what we learn changes.
Those who beleive the Bible is to be taken literal won't let anything change their beliefs on it.
Seems like an oversimplified statement. To believe the Bible doesn't mean we shut off our brains. Nor do we ignore science. But we like to see how God accomplished what he did.
It has? And no scientist has ever contradicted a previous scientist? Or proven him/her wrong?
Ok? and?
OK and and? That’s your response to the Bible claiming the Sun stood still and a donkey talked ?
Sometimes previous speculations on science get changed as we develop better equipment to test the claims . Once the technology is in place and the claims get tested and confirmed or better ideas formed from the new information, that info seldom gets altered much . We have had the means for some time now to test the geological claims of the flood . No science anywhere by any reputable source supports the flood . Archeology doesn’t support the flood. Anthropology doesn’t support the flood. No physical evidence supports the flood. The flood story exists only because some less educated Christians insist on taking a story written in the Bronze Ages as literal
Seems like an oversimplified statement. To believe the Bible doesn't mean we shut off our brains. Nor do we ignore science. But we like to see how God accomplished what he did.
Not for those who take the Bible literally it isn't an oversimplification.
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.
