Could The Bible and Science Both be Correct?

[bluedes]

---

what i have understood from their statemnt is mao ni...the bible is not a scientific book therefore it cannot be use as reference for scientific experiments and lessons. BUT it contain certain events that can be proven scientifically.


now bluedes pls don't twist their argument to suit yours.

let me side with the christians this time.

side with whomever you want..

its clear that your argument with me is personal.. you've already stated that in the other threads..

again, sorry to disappoint you bro.. but i've nothing personal against you..


therefore, you still have no substantial claim that the Bible contains scientific principles..
you don't even know how scientific principles are formulated..

[Malic]

side with whomever you want..

its clear that your argument with me is personal.. you've already stated that in the other threads..

again, sorry to disappoint you bro.. but i've nothing personal against you..


therefore, you still have no substantial claim that the Bible contains scientific principles..
you don't even know how scientific principles are formulated..

don't put malice to what i said bluedes. It was meant to inform other people that im siding with the christians.

its nothing personal blue...don't be too paranoid.

haha, i don't know? wake up, gi tudlo na sa eskwelahan dong and you can read it in the net. so stop your delusion nga ikaw ray makasabot. daghan kayo ka ug mga fallacies when it comes to arguments.


again don't twist their arguments to suit yours.

you keep on asking for scientific proofs for the bible,wa ka kasabot sa statement nga its not a scientific reference? klaro kaayo nga you want to stick sa imong argument kay once you acknowledge theirs mana ang discussion. so your only escape is imo ew twist ilang statement.

[Malic]

side with whomever you want..

its clear that your argument with me is personal.. you've already stated that in the other threads..

again, sorry to disappoint you bro.. but i've nothing personal against you..


therefore, you still have no substantial claim that the Bible contains scientific principles..
you don't even know how scientific principles are formulated..

read my statement again. here...what i have understood from their statemnt is mao ni...the bible is not a scientific book therefore it cannot be use as reference for scientific experiments and lessons. BUT it contain certain events that can be proven scientifically.

did i mentioned scientific principles? tsk tsk...ayaw lagi e twist john, na habit nani nimo nga sigeg misrepresent ug statement? or lahi imong interpretation, tarunga pagbasa palihug.

[bluedes]

don't put malice to what i said bluedes. It was meant to inform other people that im siding with the christians.

its nothing personal blue...don't be too paranoid.

haha, i don't know? wake up, gi tudlo na sa eskwelahan dong and you can read it in the net. so stop your delusion nga ikaw ray makasabot. daghan kayo ka ug mga fallacies when it comes to arguments.


again don't twist their arguments to suit yours.

you keep on asking for scientific proofs for the bible,wa ka kasabot sa statement nga its not a scientific reference? klaro kaayo nga you want to stick sa imong argument kay once you acknowledge theirs mana ang discussion. so your only escape is imo ew twist ilang statement.

huh?

asa man ka gikan tawn oi..

what kind of twist are you even talking about?

do you even understand what we are talking here?
kalma lng bro, usik ang bala kung wala ka kahibalo unsa imong gi-tirahan..

[bluedes]

read my statement again. here...what i have understood from their statemnt is mao ni...the bible is not a scientific book therefore it cannot be use as reference for scientific experiments and lessons. BUT it contain certain events that can be proven scientifically.

did i mentioned scientific principles? tsk tsk...ayaw lagi e twist john, na habit nani nimo nga sigeg misrepresent ug statement? or lahi imong interpretation, tarunga pagbasa palihug.

unya, karon? unsa-on man ni nato ron..

ilang claim is that the Bible contains scientific principles, and now you're not even acknowledging their claim, and you declare na ni-side ka nila?

twist ba gud?

side ka nila, or you're just paraphrasing what I've been saying..

libog man ta nimo..

[Malic]

huh?

asa man ka gikan tawn oi..

what kind of twist are you even talking about?

do you even understand what we are talking here?
kalma lng bro, usik ang bala kung wala ka kahibalo unsa imong gi-tirahan..

ay sus ayaw lagi sigeg deny john kay kadugayan ana bisan imong bakak motoo naka. kalma lang, ayaw ka hot kay dili ni personalan.

read again my previous post, sige lang ka ug pang twist sa argument. kasabot ko john oi, ikaw kasabot ka sa iang gi pangsulti. pataka man ka gani ka ug interpret sa akong statement.

sige john try it again read my statement.

[Malic]

unya, karon? unsa-on man ni nato ron..

ilang claim is that the Bible contains scientific principles, and now you're not even acknowledging their claim, and you declare na ni-side ka nila?

twist ba gud?

side ka nila, or you're just paraphrasing what I've been saying..

libog man ta nimo..

kanang pag ingon nako nga mo side ko nila meaning i will not argue nila. and i have my own understanding kung unsay pasabot ana. you must go along sa akong argument ayaw gamita ilang argument to discredit mine. so read it again.

yes there is a twist john kay wala ka kasabot sa ilang gisutli nga "the bible is not a scientific book".

ayaw kalibog john, mawala na imong kalibog kung muhonong ka ug pang twist sa arguments.

[bluedes]

kanang pag ingon nako nga mo side ko nila meaning i will not argue nila. and i have my own understanding kung unsay pasabot ana. you must go along sa akong argument ayaw gamita ilang argument to discredit mine. so read it again.

yes there is a twist john kay wala ka kasabot sa ilang gisutli nga "the bible is not a scientific book".

ayaw kalibog john, mawala na imong kalibog kung muhonong ka ug pang twist sa arguments.

huh? wa na jud ko kasabot sa imong post bro..

first of all, you don't claim that the Bible contains scientific principles..
and second, I'm pretty much saying that the Bible DOES NOT contain scientific principles..

so where am I twisting again?

so ikaw.. post kung unsa imong gusto i-post diha.. i've no quarrel with your statement..

*sigh*.. (i'm not disappointed anymore...)

[Malic]

huh? wa na jud ko kasabot sa imong post bro..

first of all, you don't claim that the Bible contains scientific principles..
and second, I'm pretty much saying that the Bible DOES NOT contain scientific principles..

so where am I twisting again?

so ikaw.. post kung unsa imong gusto i-post diha.. i've no quarrel with your statement..

*sigh*.. (i'm not disappointed anymore...)

todloan tika john ha cos it seems to me nga sa sige nimo ug misrepresent sa mga views sa obang tao, maglisod naka ug spot sa imong sayop kay gusto man gud nimo nga imong definition maoy himoon ug basehan.

these guys used the phrase "scientific principles" in a different context. nya imo pagsabot lahi pod. review their and your post. then you left out this part "the bible is not a scientific reference" so if its not scientific book then dili jud na angay gamiton as reference for scientifc experiments and lessons. nya kung nakasabot jud ka ana dili na unta ka sige ug insist in asking for scientific principles or any scientists using the bible as reference. but since gusto nimo e twist adto jud ka sa imong kaugalingong definition sa word nga "scientific principles" now thats what twisting or misrepresenting the view of your opponent. thats dishonesty john. and that's a fallacy.

don't push your brain too much it might bleed.

[Malic]

]Have you ever seen references on scientific paper that use the Bible as basis for their scientific formulations? Some will cite the Bible, but only as related text (source of inspiration or idea) but never a source of scientific principles.

Again, I will ask, did Kepler consult the Bible for his formulation of the planetary laws? No, he did not. He got an idea or inspiration from the Bible, but he mainly derived his scientific principles from careful observations and calculations that he did on his own.

did Galileo do such same thing consulting the Bible? heck no..

see here, this is your post. at one point you said that the bible is not a scientific book and the guys agree with you BUT in this post imo gi contradict imong gi sutli and you misrepresented their claim.

dili gani scientific book nya mangutana na hinoon ka nga if there are scientific papers that use the Bible as basis for their scientific formulations?
na pa o...did Kepler consult the Bible for his formulation of the planetary laws?

you already stated and the guys agreed that the bible is not a scientific book. but why ask these questions? klaro jud nga wa ka kasabot john, and in the process imong gi misrepresent ilang views.