Question on faith

[Audie]

Science does not do truth.

Really?
All the laws we have are not true?
Water doesn't boil at 100 C or freeze at 0C ?
Gravity doesn't exist?
There are no electrons?
Nuclear energy doesn't exist ?

Science is ALL ABOUT discovering the truth about the world we can observe AND starts from the premise that we CAN discover the truth.

I was thinking the same thing...
-
-
-

Regarding the answer on the first page - the souse of power should have read the sure power, my typo error. I was referring to your own words. Now re-read the quote below as I corrected it and then note your own statement: Science does not do truth and again look at what I wrote corrected below...

I often see people say that God's word says thus and so, so they will have faith in God's word, not in (insert science, man's reasoning, etc). It is presented as that their take on something is solidly backed up by God's words.

I wonder if it isnt often that they have faith in themselves, as having the sure power to know just what God meant by what is in the Bible.

How would anyone know which is which?

Being a former atheist and a militant one at that and then coming to Jesus I discovered how real the Holy Spirit is when he teaches. So it is more on relationship with the living God in a manner that is omni-personal, as Canuckster1127 mentioned. The Lord uses the bible to reveal to us himself in a wide range of ways that serve as a guide to the blind teaching how to see. From that living relationship we discover, by him, how each number has meaning in the bible that tell his story, as do the meanings of names. Even the colors mentioned in the bible and items in the old temple reveal things that all connect to Christ and all add up to this: that a superior intelligence inspired this amazing book beyond all doubt. In this, you are blind too, as I once was.

So you ask if it isn't all just about having faith in oneself as the sure power in how the bible is interpreted or not. So I answer with a question I once asked you earlier:

You claimed earlier to be good but are you perfect?

Sorry but I didnt get it if you want a response or you've just a rhetorical question for me there.

[Audie]

Audie wrote:
A large and consistent data indicates that humans evolved. Its highly improbable that all such data actually means something else.

I'd agree or disagree with this, depending on exactly what you mean by evolved. It's a loaded term.

Evolved, which means change over time, can be said to mean a wide range of things. At one extreme end of the meaning is that evolved means that humans evolved to modern humans from a single celled primitive life form over billions or millions of years. There is not a "large or consistent data" indicating that.

"Evolution", like "faith" is a word withwhich some love to equivocate.

I use the term as in ToE.

Why do you deny that there is a large set of consistent data for same?

[Audie]

I often see people say that God's word says thus and so, so they will have faith in God's word, not in (insert science, man's reasoning, etc). It is presented as that their take on something is solidly backed up by God's words.

I wonder if it isnt often that they have faith in themselves, as having the sure power to know just what God meant by what is in the Bible.


How would anyone know which is which?

You must be born again by Jesus to understand but I would like to know why you seem to trust man so much?Don't you know how many times man has thought one way for years and thought they had evidence and everything only to later be proven wrong?I cannot understand how you can put your faith in what man says is true,it is very unwise to me.Whole countries have been indoctrinated before and so the truth is very important to me.How do you know man is right this time?

It makes no difference whether man believed in God or not man is sinful,lies,hates,slanders,propagandizes whole societies,man is evil,lies andd needs God's truth for it is the only thing we can put our faith in.I learned this as a Christian realizing all of the doctrines of man and not of God in Christian churches.Imagine a time when Christian preachers were rascists while preaching Satan's lies instead of God's truth.I do not put my faith in what man says is true at all,my faith goes into believing God's word because it is the inspired word of God,and only it to the best of my ability do I put my faith in,I ignore lies from Satan and try to expose them.

If you read my post you will see I asked how some people can be so sure that they know the exact meaning of "god's word" .
Given that people with the same claim to "born again" understanding read the same passage and get a rainbow of different meanings, it looks to this observer that their faith is in themselves as inerrant readers.

If you have no response on topic, that is fine. Twisting the question around to invent faults in me and make it about me is not fine, Why would you think it is?

Of course people make mistakes in science. Distrust of authority is essential to science. (Opposite to religion, that way) My question had to do with how people can think they cant make any mistakes regarding what they believe "god" is telling them.

You present as very confident in your ideas about science, to the extent of making some rather extreme statements on the
mentality, character and eternal destination of those who dont see it your way.

I asked about football, because I know very little about it, so you know more.
If I started in talking about the rink, the goalie and so forth, you'd soon see I was not in a position to say anything credible
about the game.

It is obvious to me that I know science at least that much better than you; your talk of proving a theory for example is as amateur a bit of ignorance as thinking there is a football net and home base would be to you, if I argued for those things.

And yet you are confident that "god's word" backs the falsehoods that comprise the substance of your posts
trying to denounce science.

Think well who is preaching "Satan's Lies".

I think you are dodging my points that address your question,you seem to imply that truth cannot be known and yet it can,yet you take it as an offense when I point out your faith in what man says is true yet having this idea that truth cannot be known in science and this is all to prop up the atheistic side of science and evolution because it cannot be proven and they know it.I don't understand why you accept this idea,and yet still put your faith in evolution science.

You claim you know more about science than I do and you might but one thing I know is that if you believe in evolution science you cannot prove,show or demonstrate life evolves,you've never seen it happen,you've never observed it and yet know it could be wrong yet put your faith in it anyway.I try to denounce unproven science that is propped up and promoted above all other areas of science.

Meanwhile because I believe there was a former world on this earth full of life that perished I look for evidence to back it up and yet if you'd perhaps stop looking at the evidence of fossils and death in this earth that you know about because of evolution,but if you'd look at it from a former world perspective instead of an evolution perspective,you would see evidence for a former world full of life that perished and since you've never seen or observed life evolving there is no reason to keep looking at the evidence from that perspective.If a former world full of life perished you should expect to find evidence for it in this earth and you do,but you just don't look at it from that perspective.

Also even science teaches that the earth was flooded before the continents rose up and yet you overlook a flood that wiped out the former world,yet it is evidence for Lucifer's flood that caused the former world to perish,plus there is snow ball earth that says the earth was completely frozen at one time which backs up Jeremiah 4:23-28 and Genesis 1:2 inwhich the heavens became black and no sun light which means death to all life,of course though for the sake of evolution before it could be accepted they had to make sure life survived it so it can evolve,you see this is how they interpret everything in this earth and evidence.But it is evidence for Lucifer's flood in which the heavens and earth and all life perished,yeah I know you'll think "snow ball earth"happened billions of years ago but that is because of evolution.

Plus according to NOAA the average depth of the oceans is 14,000 feet but it goes down over 36,000 feet this is deeper than the tallest mountains on land this means if we could level out the earth's surface and fill in the deep trenches that make it so deep,the whole earth would be flooded right now up to the tallest mountains on land,so there is clear evidence for global floods,now read Psalm 104 and tell me how King David could've knew what he did.Did he have scuba equipment,sonar,he could tell by boating or swimming?I don't think so.He was inspired by God.

Since you asked, "How am I making up things about you?" I will put them in bold.

A lot of other things are your fantasy, made up, I could put them in intalics but Im not going to bother.

As for a "former world", its the same world. A "former world" would involve one disappearing and being replaced.

There have been three major periods in earth history since the beginning of life.
The Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic. In each case, massive extincitons took place
with few life forms surviving into the next period.

There is zero (0) actual evidence that the entire earth was every underwater. Your claim that science teaches otherwise is bunk, made up, totally false.

There is some evidence for the so called "snowball earth', but nobody has suggested that it means there was not still an equatorial area free of ice.

I think it is nice that you have some sort of interest in the deep past, but watching something on tv or seeing an article in some pop press is not going to teach you much.

Since you dont even know enough science to know that theories cannot be proved, it is more than a bit premature and ridiculous to be promoting some "theory" as superior to things you only most dimly perceive.

Oh, and a note for yourself from me. SINCE you are quite gay about making up things about me, how many other things do you suppose you've made up?

[RickD]

Audie wrote:
"Evolution", like "faith" is a word withwhich some love to equivocate.

I'm sure people do equivocate with both of those words.

But there are many types of evolution. So if it's not specified, which type of evolution is being discussed, then there's even more confusion than needs to be.

I use the term as in ToE.

That's fine. Thanks for clarifying.

Why do you deny that there is a large set of consistent data for same?

Simply because I don't think the evidence shows that to be the best answer.

[Audie]

Audie wrote:
"Evolution", like "faith" is a word withwhich some love to equivocate.

I'm sure people do equivocate with both of those words.

But there are many types of evolution. So if it's not specified, which type of evolution is being discussed, then there's even more confusion than needs to be.

I use the term as in ToE.

That's fine. Thanks for clarifying.

Why do you deny that there is a large set of consistent data for same?

Simply because I don't think the evidence shows that to be the best answer.

Ok..where is ToE inadequate, and what way is something else better?

[RickD]

Audie wrote:
"Evolution", like "faith" is a word withwhich some love to equivocate.

I'm sure people do equivocate with both of those words.

But there are many types of evolution. So if it's not specified, which type of evolution is being discussed, then there's even more confusion than needs to be.

I use the term as in ToE.

That's fine. Thanks for clarifying.

Why do you deny that there is a large set of consistent data for same?

Simply because I don't think the evidence shows that to be the best answer.

Ok..where is ToE inadequate, and what way is something else better?

Well, since I lean towards Progressive Creationism(PC), I think the evidence points more towards PC, than ToE.

[Audie]

Audie wrote:
"Evolution", like "faith" is a word withwhich some love to equivocate.

I'm sure people do equivocate with both of those words.

But there are many types of evolution. So if it's not specified, which type of evolution is being discussed, then there's even more confusion than needs to be.

I use the term as in ToE.

That's fine. Thanks for clarifying.

Why do you deny that there is a large set of consistent data for same?

Simply because I don't think the evidence shows that to be the best answer.

Ok..where is ToE inadequate, and what way is something else better?

Well, since I lean towards Progressive Creationism(PC), I think the evidence points more towards PC, than ToE.

I will assume that you dont actually mean you do conclusion first, tho you wrote that in a way could be taken so.

Care to say why you think it points more to the one than the other?

[RickD]

Audie wrote:
I will assume that you dont actually mean you do conclusion first, tho you wrote that in a way could be taken so.

I don't even know what you mean. The evidence I see, which is the same evidence that anyone else can see, points first to an intelligent creator, and then, to PC. That's my opinion.

Care to say why you think it points more to the one than the other?

Not really. I don't really have the time to get into a discussion about it.

But I'll give you an example, and you can do what you want with it. The Cambrian explosion. Points more towards PC, and is a big problem for ToE.

But if you're really interested, like I think I suggested to you before, http://www.reasons.org has some really good info regarding Progressive Creationism, among other things.

[Audie]

Audie wrote:
I will assume that you dont actually mean you do conclusion first, tho you wrote that in a way could be taken so.

I don't even know what you mean. The evidence I see, which is the same evidence that anyone else can see, points first to an intelligent creator, and then, to PC. That's my opinion.

Care to say why you think it points more to the one than the other?

Not really. I don't really have the time to get into a discussion about it.

But I'll give you an example, and you can do what you want with it. The Cambrian explosion. Points more towards PC, and is a big problem for ToE.

But if you're really interested, like I think I suggested to you before, http://www.reasons.org has some really good info regarding Progressive Creationism, among other things.

Because you lean toward (are biased in favour of) is more or less conclusion first, dont you think so?

But its good to be aware of the ways we are not objective.

While I dont agree, at all, that the Cambrian record is a big problem for ToE, we can drop that, esp as you are not interested to discuss it. Never had any particular interest in the Cambrian anyway. Permian is my favourite.

Curiosity wise, I wonder what PC means to you... like that God would periodically put out an updated model of this or that "kind"? Swept the board nearly clean every so often with mass extinctions, then made a series of updated models of those?

My take, entirely personal, is that such god as there may be would be fully capable of setting things up so that they run fine on their own, with no need for constant tinkering.. something for what I'd see a a lesser god.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Curiosity wise, I wonder what PC means to you... like that God would periodically put out an updated model of this or that "kind"? Swept the board nearly clean every so often with mass extinctions, then made a series of updated models of those?

Sim Earth 2.142, expected release date: Cambrian explosion.

My take, entirely personal, is that such god as there may be would be fully capable of setting things up so that they run fine on their own, with no need for constant tinkering.. something for what I'd see a a lesser god.

Amen sister

[RickD]

Audie wrote:
Because you lean toward (are biased in favour of) is more or less conclusion first, dont you think so?

Umm...no. When I say I lean towards PC, it means at this time, understanding what I do, I think it makes the most sense.

No, it's not conclusion first. When I was a YEC a while back, I looked into PC, Gap, and TE. I was more convinced by the arguments for PC than the others. So, study came before conclusion.

But its good to be aware of the ways we are not objective.

Seriously?

While I dont agree, at all, that the Cambrian record is a big problem for ToE, we can drop that, esp as you are not interested to discuss it. Never had any particular interest in the Cambrian anyway. Permian is my favourite.

That's fine. I didn't think you'd agree anyways. You've already concluded that the ToE is true, so why bother looking at any other possibility, right?

Curiosity wise, I wonder what PC means to you... like that God would periodically put out an updated model of this or that "kind"? Swept the board nearly clean every so often with mass extinctions, then made a series of updated models of those?

Yeah...something like that.

My take, entirely personal, is that such god as there may be would be fully capable of setting things up so that they run fine on their own, with no need for constant tinkering.. something for what I'd see a a lesser god.

I agree. And God would be capable of creating everything in an instant, or in 6 twenty four hour days. Or however He chose. But for me, it's not about what I think God was capable of, but what I believe He actually did. And for that, I lean towards PC. And again, my leaning towards PC, is my way of saying to you that I'm not dogmatic about it.

[Audie]

Audie wrote:
Because you lean toward (are biased in favour of) is more or less conclusion first, dont you think so?

Umm...no. When I say I lean towards PC, it means at this time, understanding what I do, I think it makes the most sense.

No, it's not conclusion first. When I was a YEC a while back, I looked into PC, Gap, and TE. I was more convinced by the arguments for PC than the others. So, study came before conclusion.

But its good to be aware of the ways we are not objective.

Seriously?

While I dont agree, at all, that the Cambrian record is a big problem for ToE, we can drop that, esp as you are not interested to discuss it. Never had any particular interest in the Cambrian anyway. Permian is my favourite.

That's fine. I didn't think you'd agree anyways. You've already concluded that the ToE is true, so why bother looking at any other possibility, right?

Curiosity wise, I wonder what PC means to you... like that God would periodically put out an updated model of this or that "kind"? Swept the board nearly clean every so often with mass extinctions, then made a series of updated models of those?

Yeah...something like that.

My take, entirely personal, is that such god as there may be would be fully capable of setting things up so that they run fine on their own, with no need for constant tinkering.. something for what I'd see a a lesser god.

I agree. And God would be capable of creating everything in an instant, or in 6 twenty four hour days. Or however He chose. But for me, it's not about what I think God was capable of, but what I believe He actually did. And for that, I lean towards PC. And again, my leaning towards PC, is my way of saying to you that I'm not dogmatic about it.

Good, you got thru with no name calling. Now, if you can refrain from making things up about me, you will be doing even better.

[RickD]

Audie wrote:
Because you lean toward (are biased in favour of) is more or less conclusion first, dont you think so?

Umm...no. When I say I lean towards PC, it means at this time, understanding what I do, I think it makes the most sense.

No, it's not conclusion first. When I was a YEC a while back, I looked into PC, Gap, and TE. I was more convinced by the arguments for PC than the others. So, study came before conclusion.

But its good to be aware of the ways we are not objective.

Seriously?

While I dont agree, at all, that the Cambrian record is a big problem for ToE, we can drop that, esp as you are not interested to discuss it. Never had any particular interest in the Cambrian anyway. Permian is my favourite.

That's fine. I didn't think you'd agree anyways. You've already concluded that the ToE is true, so why bother looking at any other possibility, right?

Curiosity wise, I wonder what PC means to you... like that God would periodically put out an updated model of this or that "kind"? Swept the board nearly clean every so often with mass extinctions, then made a series of updated models of those?

Yeah...something like that.

My take, entirely personal, is that such god as there may be would be fully capable of setting things up so that they run fine on their own, with no need for constant tinkering.. something for what I'd see a a lesser god.

I agree. And God would be capable of creating everything in an instant, or in 6 twenty four hour days. Or however He chose. But for me, it's not about what I think God was capable of, but what I believe He actually did. And for that, I lean towards PC. And again, my leaning towards PC, is my way of saying to you that I'm not dogmatic about it.

Good, you got thru with no name calling. Now, if you can refrain from making things up about me, you will be doing even better.

Name calling? You must have me confused with someone else.

[Kurieuo]

My take, entirely personal, is that such god as there may be would be fully capable of setting things up so that they run fine on their own, with no need for constant tinkering.. something for what I'd see a a lesser god.

Amen sister

That's kind of similar to the argument why did an all-powerful God need to create over millions and millions of years rather than in 6 days.

We cop it both ways don't we Rick? Sucks being in the middle.

[Kurieuo]

My take, entirely personal, is that such god as there may be would be fully capable of setting things up so that they run fine on their own, with no need for constant tinkering.. something for what I'd see a a lesser god.

I agree. And God would be capable of creating everything in an instant, or in 6 twenty four hour days. Or however He chose. But for me, it's not about what I think God was capable of, but what I believe He actually did. And for that, I lean towards PC. And again, my leaning towards PC, is my way of saying to you that I'm not dogmatic about it.

OMG. Seriously, I just read this after my last post.
Great minds think alike.