Faith writes:
Science would not abandon a position based on a known fact.
Not sure what you are trying to say. Maybe if you provide an example it would make it clear.
Science has on many occasions abandoned previous theories based on a new theory that better explains observations. I am sure you are familiar with them, no need to confuse this topic with the list.
Faith writes:
There is lots and lots of room for creative thinking about HOW the Flood happened
Hmmm... Now I am beginning to wonder if I am being trolled.
But thank you for graciously highlighting my point. You start with a presupposition (the flood happened) and allow for no other possibilities. All creative solutions must fall with this realm. You start with the solution and just look to fill in the details.
If science was religion there would be some sage in the middle ages who commented that luminferous aether permeates the universe. From the point on all scientist could do was to prove the existence of aether and explain natural phenomena based on aether. This would be the case even though the concept was seriously flawed. Science would stay retarded forever.
Faith writes:
Paul's statements ARE objective fact
Let us examine Paul statement:
Paul of Tarsus Corinthians_10:5 writes:
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Were is the objective fact here?
BTW replace Christ with Allah or Muhammad in the above quote and this would sound very much like something you would hear in Madrassa in Pakistan. You would find excellent agreement with fundamentalist Muslims.
Faith writes:
The Biblical accounts ARE objective statements of fact.
OK you are forcing me to look up the definition of
objective. I know your "links" are not working so I will cut-n-paste for you, but if you do have a dictionary (NOT A BIBLE DICTIONARY)....
Objective: (from Answers.com)
2) Having actual existence or reality.
3.a) Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.
3.b) Based on
observable phenomena; presented factually
4) Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
The above quote by Paul uses no facts, is an opinion, not observable, is biased and dictates prejudice. Prejudiced just like your desire to say the flood existed. You prejudged its existence, not on fact but on opinion.
If the biblical account was not available to you would laugh at anyone to suggest the myths presented there. You would not discover them by observation and measurement.
faith writes:
This is what you don't get. You guys just compartmentalize your facts and judge from sheer prejudice.
Faith this is the very essence of the point. I do not compartmentalize my facts.
However you clearly admitted above that you compartmentalize your facts and are prejudiced. Your compartment and prejudice: the flood happened, the earth is young, the creation happened in 7 days. Science starts out looking for the truth with no sacred cows. You start with your supposed truths and look to fill in the details.
Since we slinging scripture around, I wanted to share this scripture 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things hold fast that which is good". I stood amazed. This is amazing insightful for 1st century thought.
™ Version 4.2
