Numbers 23:19 does not say that God will never become a man, so God has not changed His mind.
And anyway, the Father, the only true God, did not become a man. It is the Son who is in the Father and one (thing) with the Father who became a man. God has remained an invisible Spirit all along but...
Many who attack the Deity of Jesus have to claim, without evidence, that the Bible has been changed.
People have not seen the invisible God and have not seen the full glory of God but people have seen God when He chooses to show them Himself in a form in which He is visible. eg Ex 24:9-12, Ex...
True, I don't mind admitting my faith. But what I say about science, even though seen through the eyes of faith, is not just religious bias. Faith can be eye opening, iow it can open eyes to limits in science that skeptics and atheists might just skim over or miss altogether.
Yes everything is filtered through who I am. And without my faith I would go along with all the unverified and unverifiable details of evolution that science comes up with. Going along like that smacks of confirmation bias.
You have every right to dismiss my conclusions out of hand, and seem to do that anyway without my blessing.
The evidence I use for God is nothing in your mind and although it supports my faith it is not science friendly and of course many atheists only want science friendly evidence that is...
God singles out life as things that He created and the Bible indicates that animal life at least is more than chemicals.
According to someone like Tour, the chemistry side would be near impossible to synthesise in nature and make the specific chemicals last long enough for other needed...
Tour does mention mitochondria in his spiel about the unlikelihood of life just happening with natural processes, but does not seem to do that as if mitochondria were there in the first cells. But you sound like Dave Farina in you accusations of lying...
Yes that happens. James Tour has been denied entry to, I think it is the American National Science Academy, because he speaks out.
But at the same time, different Christians draw the line in different places when it comes to origins and evolution etc and Christians should not be divided over...
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that He should lie, or a son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and not act? Does He promise and not fulfill?
Yes it means what it says.
That passage does not say that God does not become a man. Have you any other passages to prove your point...
No, "that God is not a man that He should lie", does not mean that God cannot become a man and it certainly does not mean that God cannot send His Son to become a man.
Matt 1: 16 ...........and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.
No...
James Tour knows what it means to synthesise chemicals and knows how painstaking it can be in a laboratory, and knows when abiogenesists are claiming far more than they should be claiming about what they have found.
He speaks to abiogenecists and they tell him they are nowhere near what is...
In science there is no good reason to insert God into the equation. But there is no good reason to take God out of the equation in the first place unless you say that only science can tell us what is real and when we talk theology we should really be talking science or it's all gobbledegook.
So...
But you ignore what one of the top 25 synthetic chemists say about how far abiogenesis is really away from it's objective.
You confirmation bias runs through everything you say.
OK so you think that the educated guesses have been verified. How?
Numbers 23:19 is about God not being like men who lie and change their mind. It does not mean or say that God cannot become a man.
The first Messianic prophecy in the Bible says:
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He will crush your...
It's useable by all sorts of people except it is not useable in science or by people who claim to not believe anything that is not verifiable. (yet who still believe unverifiable science)
I can amass ton of unverifiable evidence and you reject it all as evidence, but really it is not...
Whether it is science or not is not the issue. The issue is whether what Irreducible Design has been shown to be wrong in what it claims or whether it has just been shown not to be part of acceptable science.
So you think that being able to produce biological chemicals in laboratory conditions verifies that they could be produced in nature?
Or do you think that a scientific suggestion of how a part of nature might have evolved is verification that it evolved?