rhutchin

What exactly would have been so conspicuous about a worldwide flood in a dynamic system where volcanoes and earthquakes, among other things, have been distorting the evidence? To become a geologist does not require that one evaluate whether a world wide flood occurred, does it? So why look for a flood in the first place?

rhutchin

God is that entity described in the Bible and given credit for speaking the words recorded or prompting men to write the words recorded. It is independent of geographical location.

rhutchin

I do believe in a literal six day creation of the universe some 15000 years ago.

I have no problem with God's creation of the different kinds of living things and the later diversification of these kinds into many species through the normal biological processes (mutation, selection, etc.).

Reality is always correct. I may (as can anyone else) misinterpret/misunderstand that which I think is reality.

rhutchin

Science says nothing about the fundamentals. Science only addresses those things which are observable and subject to validation through repeatable experiments. One time events are beyond the scope of science as are subjective descriptors (inerrant and atoning).

LightCC

Yes, there are portions of the Bible in which the authors of a particular section write down what they claim God has said to them or to them to write down.

But there are plenty of other parts of the Bible where it is the author just writing narrative or the words that men spoke or wrote.

So, why is the whole the 'Word of God'.

Yes, God did 'speak' creation into existence. Doesn't that make creation literally the Word of God as well?

Jesus Christ is declared to be the Word of God, the literal word by which creation was made. Doesn't calling the Bible the Word of God take away from Christ's role as the Word of God, or are they one in the same?

LightCC

Interesting. What is it that causes them to declare that you have the words of the Devil? The particular translation, or just any Bible?

Culture certain influences perspective, at least on an average. That doesn't change what I meant when I asked about the Word of God, though, as I was asking it from my perspective in my culture.

LightCC

Actually, science doesn't require repeatable experiments. The posters of this board schooled me on that over a discussion of the supernatural. My opinion was similar to yours, but now I have seen the light.

Experimental science is based on repeatable experiments. Observational Science is not. It only requires predictions that have observations that can prove a hypotheses with the possibility of failure. Or something like that.

In fact, science can even speak to one-time events. Ever heard of forensic science?

rhutchin

Observational science is no more than opinion for one time events. Observational science only works the more times an event (not subject to repeatable experiment) is observed. For example, as more volcanoes or tsunamis are observed, science can identify the common elements that keep repeating and then draw conclusions. A scientist is able to describe a one-time event so that the next scientist, who is able to observe a similar event, can compare notes. The more the event is repeated, the more stable the information becomes.


Forensic science works because people are able to go into the laboratory and do the repeatable experiments that then allow forensic scientists to observe X and conclude Y. That is why they are able to determine that a person's DNA profile is unique as are fingerprints. Without the DNA and fingerprint databases to back them up, what could they determine from a single fingerprint other than that it is a fingerprint?

xaxxat

So, why is the K-T layer not so distorted as to not be found?...

:huh:

rhutchin

The issue is not that it exists but what brought about its existence. Would you (or a geologist) know what caused it just by looking at it? Does the geologist necessarily care what caused it or does he just care to map it and describe it?