Jump to content


Photo

Remarkable Coincidences


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
21 replies to this topic

#1 Tarman

Tarman

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • new zealand

Posted 02 April 2008 - 01:04 AM

The reason I have called my post Remarkable Coincidences is because one of the reasons why Christianity is very much in decline these days is because of the findings of science, not just one scientific finding from one field of science, but the vast overwhelming majority of findings from all fields of science, which are very contradictory to Christianity and other religions, and my question is why if the christian story is true then why is the scientific data always at odds with this remarkable story, what is really going on here, is this just a Remarkable Coincidence. Science overwhelmingly contradicts the bible story, if it backed it there would only be standing room at church on Sundays, science from all fields always says there was no world wide flood and always comes to the conclusion that the world is millions of years old rather than just a few thousand years, these conclusions are rarely debated these days at least not in the scientific community, what I am more interested to know is what is really going on here ? is this just a Remarkable Coincidence that science is always is at odds with religion surely if God and religion were the truth science would show this, why should the complete opposite be the case. Your comments please.

#2 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 26 February 2009 - 08:34 AM

QUOTE(Tarman @ Apr 2 2008, 04:04 AM)
The reason I have called my post Remarkable Coincidences is because one of the reasons why Christianity is very much in decline these days is because of the findings of science, not just one scientific finding from one field of science, but the vast overwhelming majority of findings from all fields of science, which are very contradictory to Christianity and other religions, and my question is why if the christian story is true then why is the scientific data always at odds with this remarkable story, what is really going on here, is this just a Remarkable Coincidence. Science overwhelmingly contradicts the bible story, if it backed it there would only be standing room at church on Sundays, science from all fields always says there was no world wide flood and always comes to the conclusion that the world is millions of years old rather than just a few thousand years, these conclusions are rarely debated these days at least not in the scientific community, what I am more interested to know is what is really going on here ? is this just a Remarkable Coincidence that science is always is at odds with religion surely if God and religion were the truth science would show this, why should the complete opposite be the case. Your comments please.

View Post



Sure... Which scientific evidence are you speaking of that "very contradictory to Christianity"?

#3 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 29 May 2009 - 05:44 PM

QUOTE(de_skudd @ Feb 27 2009, 01:34 AM)
Sure... Which scientific evidence are you speaking of that "very contradictory to Christianity"?

View Post



I don't want to put words in Tarman's mouth, but I think it was intended as a general comment. Listing which parts of scientific evidence contradict is only going to lead to a debate over whether or not what such and such says it true.

The most well accepted theories in science are often ones that contradict the Bible, why is this?

Personally I'd like to hear a more all-encompassing answer to this question, rather than starting to pick through each theory on it's own.

Regards,

Arch.

#4 chipwag64

chipwag64

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pennsylvania

Posted 11 July 2009 - 05:58 PM

These interpretations of "scientific evidence" are no surprise really, after all, the Bible speaks much of this in such passages as:

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.


1Co 1:19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.


1Co 2:12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

#5 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 13 July 2009 - 09:30 AM

QUOTE(Arch @ May 29 2009, 08:44 PM)
The most well accepted theories in science are often ones that contradict the Bible, why is this?

View Post



Which theories,and accepted by whom?

#6 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 July 2009 - 06:19 PM

QUOTE(de_skudd @ Jul 14 2009, 02:30 AM)
Which theories,and accepted by whom?

View Post



You're trying to be specific Dee. I'd like to hear an overarching explanation for why the vast majority of all sciences and scientists disagree with the Bible. It just doesn't make sense that the majority of scientists have concluded an ancient earth from the evidence, and generally only those with a religious background back up Biblical writings.
It seems to be far too much of a coincidence for my liking.

Regards,

Arch.

#7 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 14 July 2009 - 10:14 AM

QUOTE(Arch @ Jul 13 2009, 09:19 PM)
You're trying to be specific Dee. I'd like to hear an overarching explanation for why the vast majority of all sciences and scientists disagree with the Bible. It just doesn't make sense that the majority of scientists have concluded an ancient earth from the evidence, and generally only those with a religious background back up Biblical writings.
It seems to be far too much of a coincidence for my liking.

View Post



And you’re attempting to be all encompassing Arch, while I want specifics. Besides, it’s far too easy to follow the path of least resistance and toe the status quo agenda. And we all know that the best science came from those who wouldn’t accept the dogmatic stances that kept everyone under the oppressive heel of big brother.

Are you attempting to pressure us to mindlessly follow the majority? History tells of many failures in that direction.

#8 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 July 2009 - 12:31 AM

QUOTE(de_skudd @ Jul 15 2009, 03:14 AM)
And you’re attempting to be all encompassing Arch, while I want specifics.

View Post



Yep, the reason being there are plenty of other forums that go into specifics. If you want to debate the specifics, feel free to visit these other forums.

I'm not sure what Tarman wanted from this forum, but it doesn't seem as though he's come back to respond to anything for a while. In his absence I'd like to try and derive a reason why the majority of laws and theories reject the young earth the Bible tries to promote, on a whole. Why do you think it is that so many (again, the majority) of scientific theories have issues with Biblical stories?

QUOTE(de_skudd @ Jul 15 2009, 03:14 AM)
Are you attempting to pressure us to mindlessly follow the majority? History tells of many failures in that direction.

View Post



Nope, I'm asking you to explain why the majority are wrong. Who or what you follow is your own choice.

Regards,

Arch.

#9 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 October 2009 - 01:10 PM

QUOTE(Tarman @ Apr 2 2008, 01:04 AM)
The reason I have called my post Remarkable Coincidences is because one of the reasons why Christianity is very much in decline these days is because of the findings of science, not just one scientific finding from one field of science, but the vast overwhelming majority of findings from all fields of science, which are very contradictory to Christianity and other religions, and my question is why if the christian story is true then why is the scientific data always at odds with this remarkable story, what is really going on here, is this just a Remarkable Coincidence. Science overwhelmingly contradicts the bible story, if it backed it there would only be standing room at church on Sundays, science from all fields always says there was no world wide flood and always comes to the conclusion that the world is millions of years old rather than just a few thousand years, these conclusions are rarely debated these days at least not in the scientific community, what I am more interested to know is what is really going on here ? is this just a Remarkable Coincidence that science is always is at odds with religion surely if God and religion were the truth science would show this, why should the complete opposite be the case. Your comments please.

View Post



The simple explanation is that there is no good data to support a false theory.

If there had been a world wide flood, there would be abundant evidence.
Instead there is zero.

Etc.

#10 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 24 October 2009 - 01:32 AM

QUOTE(Tarman @ Apr 2 2008, 02:04 AM)
The reason I have called my post Remarkable Coincidences. . .  Your comments please.

View Post



I think I missed that broadcast. Surely it made the news, that science has proven Christianity wrong. Oh, I know, those right wing crazies I watch on FOX did not want me to know.

Could you please send me the link to the broadcast? Was it the whole Bible? Or just part of it scientifically a lie?

#11 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 24 October 2009 - 01:37 AM

QUOTE(Taikoo @ Oct 23 2009, 02:10 PM)
The simple explanation is that there is no good data to support a false theory.

If there had been a world wide flood, there would be abundant evidence.
Instead there is zero.

Etc.

View Post



Was it not you that I read earlier that no theory will ever be proven? How then can a theory be supported? Eventually this support must lead to some conclusion.

Zero evidence of a flood. Check again. There are numerous evidences that every portion of this planet has been under water. There are even evo' time that include the world being covered in water. The question is not whether the world has been flooded. When and how long are the areas of disagreement.

#12 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 October 2009 - 07:21 AM

QUOTE(larrywj2 @ Oct 24 2009, 01:37 AM)
Was it not you that I read earlier that no theory will ever be proven?  How then can a theory be supported?  Eventually this support must lead to some conclusion.

Zero evidence of a flood.  Check again.  There are numerous evidences that every portion of this planet has been under water.  There are even evo' time that include the world being covered in water.  The question is not whether the world has been flooded.  When and how long are the areas of disagreement.

View Post




Certainly I would say you can't prove the flood theory.

In fact, I would not say there is a "flood theory" at all.

For Noah's flood to qualify as a theory, it would require some data.
There is no data to support a flood such as is described in the Bible ever having happened. Those best qualified to speak on this... geologists around the world..are unable to find such data. No data, no theory.

What is "evo" time? I never heard of that.

Not sure what you are saying about evidence that all portions of the planet were once underwater. Could you cite some?

Are you saying that every portion of the earth was once underwater at the same time?


i have btw been at a well site in Kansas and seen bits of sea shell come up in limestone from 3000 ft beneath a wheat field. Impressive! One can of course traces the boundaries of that shallow sea, and trace the sediments now burying it back to the rocky mountains, which were not there when Wyoming was tropical swamp with dinosaurs.

#13 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 01 November 2009 - 09:33 PM

QUOTE(Taikoo @ Oct 30 2009, 08:21 AM)
Are you saying that every portion of the earth was once underwater at the same time?

View Post


No, I am saying that every part of the world has been under water. There is not one portion that does not show signs of the presence of large amounts for lengthy times. The highest mountains and the hottest desrts all have had water on them. Does this indicate a world wide flood. No, but it does allow the possibility as far as geology is concerned.

#14 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 02 November 2009 - 04:34 AM

QUOTE(larrywj2 @ Nov 2 2009, 12:33 AM)
No, I am saying that every part of the world has been under water.  There is not one portion that does not show signs of the presence of large amounts for lengthy times.  The highest mountains and the hottest desrts all have had water on them.  Does this indicate a world wide flood.  No, but it does allow the possibility as far as geology is concerned.

View Post




But for there to have been a world-wide flood then the evidence would have to point to everything being under water at the same time... Which I believe you had just said was not what you were saying in your previous post.

When you say lengthy times are you suggesting a large portion of creation? Are you saying a large portion of 1 year? Or are you saying the time period for the flood in the Bible?

#15 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 04 November 2009 - 12:48 AM

QUOTE(Javabean @ Nov 2 2009, 05:34 AM)
But for there to have been a world-wide flood then the evidence would have to point to everything being under water at the same time...  Which I believe you had just said was not what you were saying in your previous post.

When you say lengthy times are you suggesting a large portion of creation?  Are you saying a large portion of 1 year?  Or are you saying the time period for the flood in the Bible?

View Post


I'd have to look up the numbers of days, but if I recall correctly the days are about a year for "Noah's" flood.

IF, and I realize a big IIIIIFFFFF, for a non literal Bible interpretation, but IF, a biblical timeline is valid then, millions, billions, trillions, etc. is not valid. If true, then 6000 thousand years is possible. IF the world is only 6000ish years old, "Noah's flood" is recorded in geology.

Do you understand the position that if the Bible is correct, then "Noah's flood" is technically possible?

#16 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 05 November 2009 - 11:04 PM

QUOTE(larrywj2 @ Nov 4 2009, 03:48 AM)
I'd have to look up the numbers of days, but if I recall correctly the days are about a year for "Noah's" flood. 

IF, and I realize a big IIIIIFFFFF, for a non literal Bible interpretation, but IF, a biblical timeline is valid then, millions, billions, trillions, etc. is not valid.  If true, then 6000 thousand years is possible.  IF the world is only 6000ish years old, "Noah's flood" is recorded in geology.

Do you understand the position that if the Bible is correct, then "Noah's flood" is technically possible?

View Post




Well of course, if the Bible is correct, then it would have to be how things happened. But the question is if the literal interpretation of the Genesis account is the most accurate way to interpret it?

#17 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 05 November 2009 - 11:19 PM

QUOTE(Javabean @ Nov 6 2009, 12:04 AM)
Well of course, if the Bible is correct, then it would have to be how things happened.  But the question is if the literal interpretation of the Genesis account is the most accurate way to interpret it?

View Post


Short answer, yes.

http://www.evolution...wtopic=2811&hl=

You may want to join us here.

#18 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 November 2009 - 02:55 PM

QUOTE(larrywj2 @ Nov 4 2009, 12:48 AM)
I'd have to look up the numbers of days, but if I recall correctly the days are about a year for "Noah's" flood. 

IF, and I realize a big IIIIIFFFFF, for a non literal Bible interpretation, but IF, a biblical timeline is valid then, millions, billions, trillions, etc. is not valid.  If true, then 6000 thousand years is possible.  IF the world is only 6000ish years old, "Noah's flood" is recorded in geology.

Do you understand the position that if the Bible is correct, then "Noah's flood" is technically possible?

View Post




If the Bible is always correct then anything is possible Including Pi = 3.0

A world wide flood within the time of human existence on earth is just not a reasonable proposition.

Not unless you accept something like the idea that I saw proposed that all the extra water was sent to Neptune to serve as a warning beacon for rogue angels, and here on earth, God cleaned up the entire mess and left no sign of the flood.



It just plain is not reasonable that there would be no sign anywhere of this flood.


To me the Bible is in many ways quite an odd book for the creator of the universe to have given us as a guide book.

The only way I could see to reconcile what we got with Gods presumed power is that we miss His intent in some ways.

Its as if He said, "Here is some stuff for you to work with, Im giving you planet Earth and this book. Lets see what you can do with this stuff. Im not giving everything away for free, you'd just get lazy'.

#19 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 06 November 2009 - 03:40 PM

QUOTE(Taikoo @ Nov 6 2009, 03:55 PM)
If the Bible is  always correct then anything is possible Including Pi = 3.0

Rediculous. If the Bible is correct, then God established the Laws of this universe and just as God is reliable, so are the Laws He created. Therefore Pi=3.14 will be true as long as this universe exists (hope I remembered that correct, I usually have to look it up for formulations at work).

QUOTE
A world wide flood within the time of human existence on earth is just not a reasonable proposition.
Reasonable - from the top of my perfectly hairless head, - could occur within known parameters.
1 - There is enough water to cover the available amount of land.
2 - Every portion of land shows signs of quantities equal to a flood, even the highest peaks.
3 - Evo and Bible time scales allow for enough time for this to occur. One account even indicatees when.
ToE timescale would disagree with the timing of a world wide flood. It does not eliminate the possibility. It is rediculous to assume that at no point COULD the world have been entirely under water. Given the ToE requirements of time, it is far more reasonable to assume that a world wide flood occured. Depth and duration might be far different than that of the Biblical flood.

QUOTE
Not unless you accept something like the idea that I saw proposed that all the extra water was sent to Neptune to serve as a warning beacon for rogue angels, and here on earth, God cleaned up the entire mess and left no sign of the flood.
There is no extra water to account for.
QUOTE
It just plain is not reasonable that there would be no sign anywhere of this flood.
Show me the place on this planet that has no sign of having been under water.
QUOTE
To me the Bible is in many ways quite an odd book for the creator of the universe to have given us as a guide book.
t is not meant as ahow to for the universe. It only serves as a guide to get into Heaven. He will teach the rest later. That was the intent when He established Eden. We ruined it.

QUOTE
Its as if He said, "Here is  some stuff for you to work with, Im giving you planet Earth and this book.  Lets see what you can do with this stuff.  Im not giving everything away for free, you'd just get lazy'.

View Post


I can't say what the whole plan was, only that we failed to adhere. He was not seeing what we would do. He appeears to have spent time with Adam and Eve, probably instructing them about the universe. If the Bible is a correct record, Adam and Eve would have been genetically perfect. I can't even guess what that means for their intelligence. I will guess they had an advantage over anybody today. Add that they were immortal, the possibilites are beyond explanation

#20 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 28 March 2010 - 02:38 PM

QUOTE(Tarman @ Apr 2 2008, 01:04 AM)
Science overwhelmingly contradicts the bible story, if it backed it there would only be standing room at church on Sundays,

View Post



Where did you get this conclusion? In the parable of the rich man and Lazurus, the rich man in the flame requests that Abraham send Lazurus (in paradise) back to his brothers and warn them, so they wouldn't have to come to that place of torment. Abraham says, "They have the law and the prophets, but if they don't believe them, they won't believe even if someone came back from the dead to tell them.

They didn't have evolution then, and they still didn't believe.

The children of Israel, after they had been delivered from Pharoah in the Red Sea, refused to believe God, and subsequently that generation died in the wilderness. They never saw the promised land.

Unbelief has always been man's problem, whether he believes in God's existence or not. Satan believes in God.

God does things for people everyday and people refuse to believe. Even the people he does it for many times. That's why the scripture says to not harden your heart through sin, or you will not be able to believe or even care to believe.

DNA is a code--a code--a code--a code, did anyone hear that?

The double helix is discovered and glory is given to men for it's discovery. Discovery is not production. Are you able to discern arrogance?

Protein folds twice and three times producing interlocking binding sites, which in turn become parts of the cells of organs, bodily fluids, the brain, muscles. All put together by brainless enzymes, which themselves have folded into their structures, producing their own specific, discerning binding sites. And intelligent design is mocked.

Of course those who thumb their noses at design, can by no means tell us how it came to be in a specific way. Yet they can tell us their is no sign of intelligence in it's design.

It's no coincidence at all. It's the time of lawlessness, when men call light darkness and darkness light. But then, if you can't see intelligence in the code of DNA and the subsequent results of that code, then you wouldn't know the signs of the times.

It's not a head issue--it's a heart issue.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users