So what, exactly WAS true and what is true now?At one time something was true, but now something else is true. Science would indeed want to know the facts about this changed.
Please provide illustrations as to what you mean because, as it stands, it doesn't make sense (I'm assuming English isn't your first language).Science has the Apostle Paul's writing
Correct.it's about the facts.
So what, exactly WAS true and what is true now?
Can you show that any evidence for the claim?
Please provide illustrations as to what you mean because, as it stands, it doesn't make sense (I'm assuming English isn't your first language).
Science doesn't regard Paul's writing as factual. And provide EVIDENCE, not just claims.
Correct.
What facts are in Paul?
"Wrath-worthy" and "good" are not scientific judgements, so you're wrong on that.Science would look at the fact that all the human race are wrath-worthy; there is none good, not even one (except for one).
Yeah.The entire human race is guilty when it comes to human merit, performance, and production and all fall short, continually coming short of the righteousness of God himself.
"Wrath-worthy" and "good" are not scientific judgements, so you're wrong on that.
And, even if those did fall under the scientific purview, who - exactly - is the "one"? I assume it's Jesus. Again, the CLAIMS about Jesus are NOT scientific and are not accepted by science.
Yeah.
Please stop spouting utter drivel and answer my questions.
YOU started this thread, YOU brought up the topic of science. Yet, so far, you have posted absolutely ZERO scientific content.
"Wrath-worthy" and "good" are not scientific judgements, so you're wrong on that.
And, even if those did fall under the scientific purview, who - exactly - is the "one"? I assume it's Jesus. Again, the CLAIMS about Jesus are NOT scientific and are not accepted by science.
Yeah.
Please stop spouting utter drivel and answer my questions.
YOU started this thread, YOU brought up the topic of science. Yet, so far, you have posted absolutely ZERO scientific content.
Nah, that would be history. Which isn't a science.Science shows that Christianity developed the notion of original sin.
Nothing to do with the argument.So extreme are the psalmist’s guilt feeling that he sees himself as sinful even before birth.
No it doesn't.Science says this a is a fact.
Nothing - again - to do with science.Evil is a product of human behavior, not a principal inherent in the cosmos.
Not even close to being science.It is the power of moral choice alone, that is Yahweh like and having that good and bad knowledge is no guarantee that one will choose or incline towards the good. The very action that brought Adam and Eve a Yahweh like awareness of their mortal autonomy, was an action that was taken in opposition to Yahweh.
Yahweh knows that, that human beings will become like Yahweh, knowing good and bad; it’s one of the things about Yahweh, he knows good and bad, and has chosen the good. Human beings, and only human beings are the potential source of evil, responsibility for evil will lie in the hands of human beings. Evil is represented not as a physical reality, it’s not built into the structure of Eden, evil is a condition of human existence, and to assert that evil stems from human behavior.
No it wouldn't.Science would what us to use history to tell the story about Gen. 3:15.
Nah, that would be history. Which isn't a science.
And, even if it were, it doesn't help your case since all it does is state where that concept originated: it doesn't provide a scientific basis for the concept itself.
Nothing to do with the argument.
No it doesn't.
Nothing - again - to do with science.
"Evil" s not a scientific concept.
Not even close to being science.
No it wouldn't.
Repeating a ridiculous claim doesn't suddenly make it valid.
Still false.Science would want to know about the history that led up to Gen. 3:15.
Science does not accept (i.e. does not subscribe to the belief) that there was any tree or forbidden fruit.The history of what was going on before that tree was eaten of and the history afterwards.
No it's not. There is - again - no evidence whatsoever that this is a fact.and it is a fact that Adam and Eve was living life with a childlike innocents.
Neither is this a fact.and it is a fact that the mortal choice of good and bad enter the human race.
Nor is this.The human race made the human race.
Still false.
Either stop making this claim or provide some evidence for it.
Science does not accept (i.e. does not subscribe to the belief) that there was any tree or forbidden fruit.
No it's not. There is - again - no evidence whatsoever that this is a fact.
Neither is this a fact.
Nor is this.
It's not history, therefore science wouldn't want to know it.Science would indeed want to know this history.
You really don't have a clue, do you?The cave man that were before Adam and Eve. But God did not create them in his image.
Unsupported claims.Being created in the image of God means that we must view ourselves as intrinsically valuable and richly invested with meaning, potentially and responsibilities. We are to be and to do on a finite scale, what God is and does on an infinite scale.
By virtue of being created in the image of God, human beings are capable of reflecting his character in their own life; animals possess none of these qualities. What distinguishes people from animals is the fact that human nature inherently has godlike possibilities.
Nor has "god" been shown to have any of these attributes,Omniscience, omnipotence, or omnipresence, none of these other divine attributes have been ascribed to the human race as part of the image of God.
Unsupported crap.We have been created to reflect God in our thinking and actions, but the physical sustained by God and dependent upon him for our existence in this world and in the world to come. Developing a godly character in this present life, this will be our personal identity in the world to come. It is the character or personality that we have developed in this life, that God preserves in his memory.
As is this.So these cave people, they would have to have everything we have,
These cave people would not have had a God conscious, like God has given to the human race a God consciousness, the conscious perception that we could say that there is a God somewhere and that ultimately the human race is accountable to that God. These cave people would have been smart, knowing how to make a living. Science likes history; what, around five billion years of science here in this fifth 'a day'?
It's not history, therefore science wouldn't want to know it.
You really don't have a clue, do you?
Unsupported claims.
Nor has "god" been shown to have any of these attributes,
Unsupported crap.
As is this.
And please stop posting videos that you have no idea whatsoever about.
False again: it's not history, there is no evidence that "angles" exist - either fallen or not, nor has Yahweh been shown to exist.Science does indeed want to understand this history; three stages of history. No history, no science. Science would want to know why the individual who was talking to Eve that day at the tree, tried to breed the human race out of existences. The offspring of the fallen angles. These abnormal beings, their destruction was necessary for the preservation of the human race, and for the faithfulness of Yahweh’s Word (Gen. 3:15). Science indeed wants to know this history.
False again: it's not history, there is no evidence that "angles" exist - either fallen or not, nor has Yahweh been shown to exist.
Therefore I can only assume that when you (keep) say(ing) "science wants to know" you actually mean that YOU want science to accept your fairy stories and consider them to be factual.
Unfortunately for you there is nothing whatsoever to show that those fairy stories are factual nor any indication that they could be.
Given your massive (and wilful) ignorance on how science (and reality for that matter) operates - and your continued failure to actually address my questions/ points - I'm not going to bother with this thread any more. You're obviously incapable of forming a coherent rational argument.
Were these angles obtuse?The offspring of the fallen angles.
Were these angles obtuse?
OK - so you must be the obtuse one.Science don't care about them fallen angles, because they are about keeping sin on the table of God's justice, that is religion. Science wants to understand Gen. 1:14-19. Because this is the first mention of the heavenly bodies that can be seen from the earth. The groupings of the stars, there is no articulate speech or voice, and no words are heard, but their sayings have gone out into all the world (Ps. 19:1-6). Science would indeed what to know if this Gen. 3:15 came to pass.
Were these angles obtuse?