Exactly. To ask "What does science say about X?" presupposes an understanding of X.Good point.
If we're to analyze the fitness of the text to scientific view, then we have to analyze the text and critique different views of how to interpret it.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Exactly. To ask "What does science say about X?" presupposes an understanding of X.Good point.
If we're to analyze the fitness of the text to scientific view, then we have to analyze the text and critique different views of how to interpret it.
So basically you are redefining the "Laws" to coincide with one of the many definitions of "god"?The Laws are separate from the Universe and do not have shape or form and the Laws simply exist and is an entity separate from the universe that has always existed. The big bang as described by science could not happen without those laws so the laws existed before that event. All action and reaction is dictated by the Laws.
Good point.
If we're to analyze the fitness of the text to scientific view, then we have to analyze the text and critique different views of how to interpret it.
And said description, which you JUST STATED is the topic, is different depending upon which version of that very description you use....The interpretations of religions are not the topic.
The description in Genesis as it describes a God and a scientific perspective of that God is the topic.
Exactly. To ask "What does science say about X?" presupposes an understanding of X.
And said description, which you JUST STATED is the topic, is different depending upon which version of that very description you use....
It is if you want to compare science to a religious story (Genesis). You can't fit Genesis (religious story) to science unless you know how to interpret the religious story.The interpretations of religions are not the topic.
What God does it describe? How does it describe this God? I can't compare it to a scientific perspective until we've first settled what the story describes.The description in Genesis as it describes a God and a scientific perspective of that God is the topic.
But you're asking to compare a religious story to science, without doing the proper analysis of the story. I'm not talking about a theological analysis, but you refute to discuss the interpretations of the story only to favor your own.If you want a religious discussion on the many interpretations then there is a religious section of the forum for that.
That is just it, HE IS staying on topic.No- any "understanding" you apply would be nothing but your opinion or religious bias.
If you want to discuss religious interpretations of the bible there is a religious section in the forum for that.
This is discussion is for looking at the description in Genesis of a God and seeing if their is a scientific perspective that can be applied to that description.
If you are seeing a different description from those words then explain your description?
Please stay on topic.
It is if you want to compare science to a religious story (Genesis). You can't fit Genesis (religious story) to science unless you know how to interpret the religious story.
What God does it describe? How does it describe this God? I can't compare it to a scientific perspective until we've first settled what the story describes.
But you're asking to compare a religious story to science, without doing the proper analysis of the story. I'm not talking about a theological analysis, but you refute to discuss the interpretations of the story only to favor your own.
Jay wanted some analysis of your interpretation, but you don't want to, yet you want this vague and personal interpretation to fit a scientific view. Then this "fitting" is nothing but your interpretation as well.
I can just as easily make the claim that you are only avoiding answering on topic questions because you are a feared they will undermine your agenda.This is just another tactic you use when you do not want to discuss the topic and want to take the discussion off topic to try and make it irrelevant because it challenges your own beliefs.
Ignorant rubbish.No- any "understanding" you apply would be nothing but your opinion or religious bias..
I can just as easily make the claim that you are only avoiding answering on topic questions because you are a feared they will undermine your agenda.
Wow.
i never realized just how much fun making bold empty claims were.
Especially if I do not have to worry about credibility of supporting them with anything other than more bold empty claims.
I can see now why it is so addictive.
Which applies equally to you.No- any "understanding" you apply would be nothing but your opinion or religious bias.
Ignorant rubbish.
And now you are already back to elementary school behavior?You have added nothing of substance and will be ignored for the rest of this discussion.
If you want respect for your posts- start showing respect!
interesting.Are you saying that anything you say is not just opinion and based on personal bias?
LOL!!!
No- any "understanding" you apply would be nothing but your opinion or religious bias.
^ pretty dishonest.Are you saying that anything you say is not just opinion and based on personal bias?
Good point.
If we're to analyze the fitness of the text to scientific view, then we have to analyze the text and critique different views of how to interpret it.
^ pretty dishonest.
I would say the same about your avoiding exploring the interpretations.This is just another tactic you use when you do not want to discuss the topic and want to take the discussion off topic to try and make it irrelevant because it challenges your own beliefs.
So speaking in the void and creating man from clay isn't part of Genesis?
My description is that Genesis is allegorical and metaphorical. So you can fit anything you want by contorting the meanings.If you disagree with that description then you need to explain your own description.
Sure.I am not going to debate why I started the discussion. I did it because I can and that is what this forum is for.
I didn't say I don't like the topic, but if you want to explore the topic, you have to be open to other people's views.If you do not like the topic. Start your own and ignore my discussions in the future please.