|
Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Quote:
1 Timothy 6:<SUP class=versenum>20 </SUP>O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: <SUP class=versenum>21 </SUP>Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. It stands to reason that there is such a thing as a false science. Tha trouble with science today is that it treats theoritical science (that which cannot be observed nor proven ) on par with practical science ( that which can be observed and proven ). Science today has gotten so bad that they treat theoritical science with more credibiity than the laws of science. They even change the definition of the law of biogenesis as if it only means life did not comes from nothing. Really? Where does biogenesis come in? I recollected that it also meant life comes from similar life. When and how that full definition got modified is unknown, but come one, people. The world is lying to us through science that is not even real practical science! They want to treat the Bible like a fairy tale, but their evolution theory as if it is far from being a fairy tale even though it consists of hypothesis upon a hypothesis so that by having a series of hypothesis, it must be true. And when they change their thinking on the evolution "theory" from being gradual macroevolution by a series of micro evolution, to the more favoured evolution theory, Punctual Equilibrium or rapid macro evolution as supposedly supported by all the evidences in the fossil record, because there are too many huge gaps of transitional fossils that it had to be rapid; that is like saying that what was fact before was just guesswork: but you can trust them that they know what they are talking about now? Now which qualifies as a fairy tale now? The scripture which Jesus testified that it cannot be broken or the ever changing face of the evolution theory which I happen to believe qualifies as a false science? John 10:35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Was Jesus spinning a fairy tale about the scripture not being a fairy tale? Can't very well do that when the Jews were seeking to stone Him for blasphemy. John 10:<SUP class=versenum>31 </SUP>Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. <SUP class=versenum>32 </SUP>Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? <SUP class=versenum>33 </SUP>The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. <SUP class=versenum>34 </SUP>Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? <SUP class=versenum>35 </SUP>If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; <SUP class=versenum>36 </SUP>Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? <SUP class=versenum>37 </SUP>If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. <SUP class=versenum>38 </SUP>But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. <SUP class=versenum>39 </SUP>Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand, Can we see the end result if scripture was a bunch of fairy tales? Jesus would not bother to quote the scripture if they were a bunch of fairy tales. But it is amazing how people will keep on believing the evolution theory even when it undergoes a dramatic change. Just saying that this is what science does; funny how that is what people say about spinning a fairy tale. Science that says how old the earth is, cannot verify anything beyond human history. And when they are getting errors in their dating results as proven within the timeframe of human history, like a living mollusks carbon dated as 2,300 years old dead, I wouldn't put stock in it when they are stating their dating results beyond human history as facts. So in short, no one can prove how old the earth is scientifically, yet. Stephen Jay Gould cited that a global flood had to tap that capacity for the explosion in the fossil records which he assumed happened out of the Cambrian period. Evolutionists will argue that he did not say how high the global flood was. And yet on the Andes mountaintops, there is a mass grave yard of fossilized whale bones with fossilized marine life found WITH fossilized land animal bones. Scientists can just pick them right up. http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/12/us...-from-sea.html So in spite of the evolution presentation of the evidence in that article, all I see is evidence of a world wide flood because that article is overlooking the fact that similiar finds of mass grave yards of fossilized marine life can be found with fossilzied land animals on other mountaintops at various locations over the entire world. And so that article is missing the forest for the trees by trying to "explain away" how this happened by the mountains rising up suddenly from the sea as if this was not a global wide event. Again, their dating methods are unreliable within human history as well as beyond. Granted, forensics can ascertain evidence presently enough in any CSI lab, but even they can say that certain elements can throw off their giving the correct time of the murder. Not sure why so many would have the same confidence if a crime scene was on top of a mountain. Even they will say sometime that the crime scene has been contaminated, and the results do not agree with each other. Then you have that reservoir effect where living things under the sea are absorbing less carbon 14 than those on land. Now in spite of knowing this; false science still say that the land animals came up on the mountains at a different time from when the whale bones and other marine life has been fossilized. This is false science doing their best to fit the evidence into the evolution theory. How flawed is that thinking? What caused the variety of land animals to go up on the mountains to die and be found buried together by sediment to be fossilized with strangely enough, other fossilized marine life & whale bones where they can just pick either of them off right off of the ground? As much as false science wants people to read the Bible as a fairy tale, and thus the rest of the Bible with skepticism as if written by fallible men, it is too bad that the skeptics do not apply that same standard to the falliblity of men in the false science that is the evolution theory. Now for every one that puts stock in science; then ask Him to help you use the laws of science to see how the evolution theory is invalid and not real science at all. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
What's yer point bro J4M? That when it comes to the age of the earth we can't trust science nor the Bible?
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Matthew 19:<SUP class=versenum>3 </SUP>The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? <SUP class=versenum>4 </SUP>And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, <SUP class=versenum>5 </SUP>And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? <SUP class=versenum>6 </SUP>Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Think Jesus could have made this case if the Genesis account of the creation account of the first man & the first woman and thus the first marriage was just some metaphorical story? Mark 2:<SUP class=versenum>23 </SUP>And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. <SUP class=versenum>24 </SUP>And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? <SUP class=versenum>25 </SUP>And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? <SUP class=versenum>26 </SUP>How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? <SUP class=versenum>27 </SUP>And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: <SUP class=versenum>28 </SUP>Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. Jesus tesified to the seven days of creation week with the seventh day being a day of rest created for man. That may not mean much to some, but one cannot make a point about the seventh day with affirming the six day creation week. There is science and there is false science. There are the laws of science and then there is the evolution theory; a lie in science. In Job 40, God describes a behemoth whose descriptions can be nothing else but a dinosaur. He said He craeted it with man to Job because obviously, He foresaw the need to prove the evolution theory wrong for those that loved Him & His words to see that false science in science. The disciple of James did not consider the Book of Job as just a story. James 5: <SUP class=versenum>10 </SUP>Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience. <SUP class=versenum>11 </SUP>Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy. One cannot refer to the Book of Job for encouragement to endure unless Job was a real person. Thus, we read about the behemoth that God said He created with man. Job 40:<SUP class=versenum>15 </SUP>Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. <SUP class=versenum>16 </SUP>Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. <SUP class=versenum>17 </SUP>He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. <SUP class=versenum>18 </SUP>His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. <SUP class=versenum>19 </SUP>He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. <SUP class=versenum>20 </SUP>Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. <SUP class=versenum>21 </SUP>He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. <SUP class=versenum>22 </SUP>The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. <SUP class=versenum>23 </SUP>Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. <SUP class=versenum>24 </SUP>He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares. A cedar is a tree. Because Biblical scholars go to college & influenced by that false science, footnotes have them saying it was a hippo or an elephant BUT neither of them has a tail like a tree. No one can say it was a metaphor when God said He made the behemoth with man. No one can say that they saw bones of a dinosaur and referred to that long dead beast when God describes the behemoth as living. And yet dinosaurs supposedly did not exists for millions of years before man came unto the scene in according to the evolution theory. Death cannot be in the world before Adam had sinned. To have death in the world outside of Adam sinning is to take away the glory of God's victory in Christ Jesus over sin & death. So use Him & the KJV Bible as your guide to the truth in science, especially in the area where the Bible contradicts what they say is true about the evolution theory when nothing about the evolution theory has been proven true at all. Only He can expose to you that the evolution theory is a false science. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Folks, with deep respect
I might recommend doing some reading on theories, and how they come to be. Scientists talk very different than people in religion do, so "only a theory" is a horrible statement. If you are truly interested I can recommend some great books to read. Clipped from wiki "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation." It is very sad to me today that many people twist the observations that have painstakingly been made by scientists over the ages that have only added to the theory of evolution. It is now difficult for folk without scientific background to wade through the cleverly crafted arguments. I see a lot of parallels between the LC's behavior and that of creationist institutions that masquerade as science(perhaps the saddest manifestation of that is the creation museum in Kentucky, but I digress) or otherwise attempt to explain away natural world wonders. The fact of the matter is that evolution is considered the grand unifying theory in biology. It has been shown to have incredible predictive power. Understanding the theory of evolution has lead to innovations in numerous fields...off the top of my head medicine and human health, conservation biology, biogeography, and ecology. You benefit from this very theory everyday. Keep in mind that science simply cannot provide evidence for or against a supernatural being. Science does not intend to tear down any literal translation of anyone's creation story-but it certainly will not submit to supporting them. It is simply the most rigorous explanation for the current evidence. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Since my name is at the top of this thread, I would like to know if I am being affirmed or critiqued, and why.
It would be nice if J4M would write shorter posts, with an opening point, supporting ideas, and conclusion. Perhaps I have ADD, since I have trouble making it thru long posts and not knowing the point. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
And yes, we in Kentucky have the dubious honor of a Creation Museum. There they teach that humans rode dinosaurs. In short, they take the Fred Flintstone Cartoons literally. Yabba dabba doo. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Exactly. Understanding evolution allows us to make predictions, and perhaps better choices. For example in beekeeping a lot of innovation has gone into breeding hardier bees and otherwise helping them avoid colony collapses in the long run...by going back to inspect the natural history of them and understanding the evolutionary arms race that they (and we) are locked in with our parasites and symbionts. In the long run more effective than tossing more and more chemicals at them.
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
And don't start calling me a follower of ID. I am neutral on the subject. It could be a 6-day, 6-month, 6-year, 6,000-year, or 600,000,000,000 creation. God still did it. And he put something different into man (once man was on the scene in whatever version actually transpired). |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The Law of Biogenesis is what? Nowadays they say it only means life did not come from nothing. My recollection from my high school days in the 80's is that it also means life come from similar life. That's where the biogenesis comes from out of that "law of biogenesis", but I bet you guys can't find that now in today's "science" textbooks. Science worked in micro evolution; but try to get a universal definition on that one. Quote:
Quote:
Then there is macro evolution. http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...oevolution?s=t Quote:
Anybody here really wants to defend this "science"? :scratchhead: The Law of Biogenesis as I remembered it to mean disproves macro evolution. Then there is that other law of science below. http://www.allaboutscience.org/first...namics-faq.htm Quote:
Hence going back to the law of Biogenesis that a cow will always be a cow and a man will always be a man, and a rose by any other name is still a rose. MACRO EVOLUTION has now been proven by those two laws of science as false. Now... any one trying to make these laws of science as if they are bendable as if it did not really mean what it says are only trying to make the evolution theory; as in macro evolution, believable, when it is false. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Your response seems to be the general consensus of the belief of this forum. I am hoping God is using me to share some truths for you and others to reconsider by, knowing that only He can cause the increase. Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
It is okay to have questions about the Bible, but I am asking you to do the same in the field of science. Discernment is needed, and when we have been led to believe certain things without question, sometimes we need His help to see the truth. Setting the example, may lead cultists to follow suit and prove everything by Him as well, because proving all things means proving everything in science too, and macro evolution cannot be observed nor proven; therefore go to the laws of science to prove or disprove macro evolution. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Jesus4me:
No difference can be made between macro and micro-evolution. Except possibly for the frequent creationist reasoning of "macro" evolution being evolution they do not accept and "micro" evolution being evolution they do not find alarming. The term is frequently used to refer to macro-evolution being that of species evolving, while microevolution is that of genetic change within a population. If that is the case, we have observed speciation and reproductive isolation occur. A couple neat examples. Keep in mind the difficulty in defining species(today as much as in the days of Linnaeus scientists squabble over whether to split a species in two or clump two species together) is an integral part of the natural world and part of what pushed folks to craft the theory of evolution in the first place. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...-observations/ We have also, in both nature and in captivity seen remarkable changes in species in a very short time. But no, we cannot literally watch fish turn into amphibians or walking mammals into whales but like detectives we can piece together a story from all the manner of both living and fossil evidence...the same way a detective can piece together exactly what happened at a crime scene based on evidence. The results of this kind of reasoning stand in court of law as well as in science. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
I am very skeptical of the underlying message of evolution. Many assume that evolution is truth, and thus man has evolved, and was not created by God. I totally disagree. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The AltViews sub-forum was setup by UntoHim to accommodate the controversial views of several ex-members of the LCM who in my opinion have become shipwrecked regarding the faith. (I Tim 1.19) |
Re: Bible Versus Science
The first law of thermodynamics in no way disproves evolution. Evolution does not create energy nor matter that was not there previously...any more than you growing larger means that you are creating new matter.
The second law of thermodynamics is more frequently looked at as evidence against evolution...again by desperate creationists who do not understand either. Again, many processes in the natural world create organization from random events-snowflakes, crystals, etc. Also think about waves hammering a coastline creating headlands and coves. Now perhaps it is a bit random how the waves are hitting the coast, but the repeatable pattern is observed in all sorts of things on the beach(the formation of a wrack line, or the removal and deposition of sand from one side of a beach to another for example) The energy to create organization is derived in a living organism like you and me from the sun, since the earth is not a closed system. Theories to explain abiogenesis(the formation of the first cells) are separate from evolution. The Law of Biogenesis applies today, since in days of old people thought that flies animated from raw meat, or that eels produced more of themselves by rubbing against rocks and the like. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
But we're on this internet because of science. And we today can't deny all the benefits science has brought us, like the medical advances and cures. Nor can we deny all the very harmful things science has brought, like WMDs. Also, science has come along and dis-proven many of our past religious superstitions. And fundamentalism, and BTW the gap theory, was born out of fear that science is attacking the Bible ; like all the scientists in the world are conspiring to bring the Bible down. Isn't that your position bro J4M, or at least your worry and concern? |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Not saying that is what happened. Just saying that I do not find the idea contradictory to the fact that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is within it, including man. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
OBW: Except for the literal translation of the Genesis story. It also warms the hearts of men to know they are different from the animals because they were specially created. (interestingly, in Ecclesiastes Solomon claims otherwise)
I would excercise extreme cau...actually just do not try to use the bible to prove science. Yes, people may tout the gap between 1.1 and 1.2 to explain away the fossil record (it does not), and the flood supposedly matching the geological history of this planet. The actual geological record is so complex that it cannot provide any support for these simple outlandish claims. This is an utter waste of time. The idea that we split off from chimpanzees, inheriting mistakes in their genome which explain why we need vitamin C, evolved bipedalism first, then evolved larger brains which allowed humans to spread throughout the globe may not be particularly flattering to some...though I find it remarkable. But it explains a lot more of our current health problems than does special creation and then the fall. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Haha that is great.
More recently was the court ruling that intelligent design could not be demonstrated to be science and so could not be taught in schools. Sometimes reason does prevail! |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Since Genesis says, "evening passed and morning came the second day," there is no justification for "longer" days. Genesis days use the earth's rotation. Evolution is, by definition, life without a creating God. As such, I find no reason for Christians to accept it in any shape or form, or timeframe. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Ohio: I have absolutely no faith in evolution...i accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the theory. There is an important difference. For a long time I was reluctant to accept human evolution but again the evidence is there...for anyone to read about and carefully observe. Nature carries no bias.
I agree though....people believe lies. They are most vulnerable when young. Just because something has been repeated over and over does not make it right. Evolution and science has nothing to say about Gods existing or not-your definition is incorrect...the evidence in the natural world just happens to fail to support the genesis creation story. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Quote:
To me that is the Law of Biogenesis & the 1st Law of Thermodynamics in play here which is why macro evolution is never going to happen. Quote:
That's like taking evidence from the crime scene and saying that the butler did it because every detective just like saying that even though no butler was involved. Let's look at the DNA for evidence in relations to the Law of Biogenesis & the 1st Law of Thermodrynamics. If matter cannot be created nor destroyed, where is that genetic information coming from to "add" to that fish's DNA to even start a fish with growing legs to come up out of the water? If the laws of science dictates that extra chromosomes are not going to appear out of thin air to change a certain kind of animal into another, then our observance of what we can see should dispel the theory of what we cannot see, nor ever will. Now I am using the laws of science of what we can observe and see. Any theory that opposes it, should not be considered a scientific theory at all. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
May God continue to aid you in your search for the truth in all things. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The Law of Biogenesis & the 1st Law of Thermodynamics supports the Bible account of creation. Quote:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APCo...=9&article=801 I would like to quote something but since it is copyrighted, I would point out the fifth paragraph down the page; it woud be the first paragraph past that first figure graph on that page. Now don't you hate it when they present assumptions as if they were facts? There are sources for references for confirmation at this site. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
And seems Will Brooks is just your type. He may be a cell biologist, but his starting premise is the Bible, And I quote him: "The designer of this system must be the intelligent Designer, the God of the Bible." My question is: Why do we have to prove that the Bible proves science? What's that obsession all about? Why? Do we lack faith ; and so are protecting the Bible, cuz it's a crutch for our weak faith? God does not need the Bible. He created everything without need of any book at all. "Bible" is not even mentioned in the Bible. And one of your posted verses (1 Tim 6:20) when it speaks of science the word science in the KJV is actually gnosis in Greek. Does replacing science with the Bible mean opposing knowledge? Should we become as ignorant today as they were back when the Bible was written? Is that what yer saying bro J4M? |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Is a cow still a cow? No. Their are three species of cows. Bos taurus-domestic cattle Bos indicus-Zebu Bos primigenius-The extinct auroch, and the ancestor of the domestic cow. So here scientists split an animal that evolved from an ancestor in part due to our domestication into its own species. So no cows are not just cows Man still man? Man is very luck many of his relatives are extinct so he can bask in his supposed uniqueness. Unfortunately and ironically they left an excellent fossil record. I wonder what we would refer to the several different species of Homo, Australopithecus, and the like if they were still alive. Creationists can't seem to decide if different fossils represent man or ape in any case! Oh the irony... Rose still a rose? Roses are an entire genus of plants-of which their are many species. So no, roses are not just roses. Just for fun...roses come in diploid and various levels of polyploidy. So as you can see, "kinds" is not so simple, and they are far from static. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Matter is not being created or destroyed. For one thing, all biologists I am certain are at least somewhat familiar with those laws. If evolution did contradict them that would be quite the discovery. A very brief lesson on the fundamentals on genetics DNA is basically a 4 letter code. Each letter codes for amino acids that code for proteins. Life copies DNA more accurately than even the best human scribe could(greater than 99.9% accuracy). But changes do occur, and if they are in the gametes, they will pass to the next generation. These so called mistakes are actually part of life's strength and resilience-if genes were copied with 100% accuracy evolution would be impossible. Some genes code for things than can turn other genes on and off during an organisms development, so only a little change can do all kinds of strange stuff-and no, not all of it is deleterious. Chromosomes appear all the time! But not out of nowhere. Basically, if meiosis(read about that) goes a bit awry gametes can end up with extra sets of chromosomes. This is called polyploidy. If you ate a strawberry that was big and lumpy-you ate a polyploidy plant. Sometimes polyploidy results in one generation speciation events because it results in the progeny being unable to backcross to the parents. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
On the apologetics link.
I did some looking at the original papers. I see a lot more assuming on the apologists end and a lot less sciencing. I have a bit of formal training in genetics. But a couple things stand out in their writing that are notable misrepresentations. -the assumption that the chromosomal fusion would require both positive selection for the trait on proto humans and protochimps does not hold...selection pressures can be different between the two species. Also, the data suggest their may have been a benefit from fusion. . If not, a small founder population for example could cause the trait to become ubiquitous among proto-humans for all sorts of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium reasons. Also mutations cannot happen in response to challenge-challenge may select for a mutation that happens. Polyploid plants are sometimes more vigorous than diploid ones...yet not all species are polyploid. For example a neat coevolution must have happened between cows and humans in some cultures. In these a mutation that caused adult humans to continue to produce lactase proliferated and became ubiquitous in cultures where it was advantageous. If something struck and the only survivors were a single cowherding tribe...we would have all inherited this mutation. Humans actually came very close to extinction at one point in our history before re-radiating. It is unfortunate we cannot do dna tests on other species of homo, australopithecus, sinathropus, etc...unless by some fortune a specimen were preserved from decomposition. The chimpanzee genome is also currently being sequenced in full. Unlike creationist reasoning, I am open to further discoveries that will reveal more information. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
But J4M seems to run from reasonable discussion. Seems he only likes to preach. I guess we'll see as time goes on. Likely he'll run out of steam and be gone. That's a shame. I had high hopes for him. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
A nice quick piece on the ID movement.
http://ncse.com/creationism/general/...gn-creationism People will go to lengths to do things they might otherwise denounce to protect a set of beliefs. We know this as those who can look at the LC's history objectively. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
This is a listserv...but it looks rigorously researched indeed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html And so much more at your local library. Or, you can cover your eyes and bury your head in the sand. You can get all your info and worldview from one source and stay out of your mind. Gee that sounds like a system we all escaped from in the first place! |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Here's the problem as I see it. Bible believers are compelled by Matt. 28:19-20 to "teach all nations." Of course that's says "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." But they expand that to the whole Bible. In other words, the gospel to them is the whole Bible, including creation. And the listserv link he provided shows that they will go to any length to defend their gospel of the Bible. They don't bury their heads in the sand, they bury it in the Bible. J4M started this thread. He's obviously on the Bible side. So we should be happy, and feel privileged, to have someone on the side of Science on AltVs. Isn't that the purpose of AltVs? LSM is obviously on the side of the Bible as well. So supporting evolution is nothing like LSM. And since we came out of the LSM movement, why should we have any particular respect for them? They deceived us. And it's obvious, by what Intothewind has presented, that, creationists will use any kind of trickery and deception to push their gospel of the Bible, onto society, and into the school system. Education should teach critical thinking, not religion as science. If you want religion there's plenty of it in the LSM movement ... and in Catholic schools. Both offering deception ... as do creationists ... as the courts have so ruled. Thank God. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Awareness: A better explanation than I can give, indeed. Thank you.
I've found it personally a much more freeing way to look at the world. So much is unknown, and so many wonderful questions. I recall an undergrad at my school recently published a project on the movement of the humble garden snail. Previously it was assumed they crawled along by sending ripples down their muscular foot...you can watch this if you go outside, peel one off your wall, wake it up by spritzing it and then sticking it to some glass. But if you think about it-this doesn't really make sense when you look at silvery snail trails on the sidewalk-they are not solid lines but rows of dots. So it turns out, on rough surfaces...garden snails move in a sort of gallop-at least that's what they tell me. I could go outside, get me a snail, and make some observations of my own and see what I find. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Parasitic Worms - Aggressive MimicryWhy do the Flukes like to live in the songbirds? Maybe they like the tunes ... and trick their way back into the songbird; hijacking and animating the snail, to trick the songbirds. Why would evolution create such a complex arrangement? Why would God do such a thing? It's a Fluke ... just one mystery among trillions, in what we like to call "our" creation. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Ohio: Their can be no evidence for a Creator, because we of course cannot know a Creator's mysterious ways. For example, the almost universal nature of genetic code is evidence for common ancestry of all life-I freely admit that it could be used as evidence for a common designer. So no evidence can be for or against a creator in the general sense. Some argue for what they call theistic evolution that allows that a deity might be controlling its progress. Science has no way of refuting that so long as the deity is not described in any detail.
Some folk have tried to find evidence for things so specially created they could not have evolved...i.e irreducible complexity argument. These arguments do not hold water. Plenty of evidence exist, however, to nullify the possibility of the Creator or creation account matching that of the Bible. No evidence exists of animals such as lions being vegetarian before a certain time. Snakes did evolve from burrowing lizards-but they lost their legs well before humans appeared-their was no need for God to curse the one in the Garden. How would you explain all the very human remains from much further back then Biblical calculations tell us the Eden story was placed? How do you explain that all evidence currently points to Africa as being the origin of the modern human, not the Middle East? Snakes and whales must have been cursed similarly because in removing the legs God forgot to remove them in their entirety... Such horrendous ways of making a living such as the fluke greatly troubled Victorian era naturalists who found it difficult to stomach that God would create life to inflict such suffering. I suppose you could attribute such things to the fall, but evidence suggests that since the dawn of time organisms have been parasitized, eaten, and engaged in all the manner of immoral acts. I suppose if the fluke points to a Creator-he must be fond of Sisyphean acts of pitting his creatures against each other in a constant struggle for survival. Perhaps he wants us to marvel in the spectacle of a snail repeatedly having its eyes bitten off. Maybe the bird, to pay for its sins, is required to carry a burden of fluke parasites. The fluke can be handily explain via evolution-and in fact different species of flukes show different amounts of specialization as parasites. Some flukes are freeliving. Some flukes have simple lifecycles that only consist of one host. Others such as the one described involve multiple, usually trophically-linked hosts(a guess-but this probably started as flukes simply surviving and figuring out how to reproduce in this new host that they so frequently ended up inside of it-eventually evolving ways to encourage their transfer to the correct final host). Such flukes tend to lose function of various organs that they needed while they were free-living as they become adapted to parasitism. Meanwhile, hosts such as ourselves are locked in an arms race in evolving alongside of parasites. The snail also handily is explained by evolution. It worked with what it was given from its evolutionary history as a marine animal. If you are curious(and do not have any young souls looking over your shoulder-fair warning!) the Argentine lake duck is an interesting example of evolution(as is just every other organism in existence). Its existence due to special Creation on the other hand... Also cool are atavisms http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd...l#atavisms_ex2 Note also in the biogeography section specific predictions that would falsify the idea. This is something creationists cannot and are unwilling to give. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Their basis is a Bible taken literally. However, that means they are unable to use the Bible to those that take their authority from the scientific method, evidence, observation, and empiricism. So they try to use scientific sounding words, not taken from their Bible, cuz they are not in their Bible. Defending the Bible as the final absolute authority means any method can and will be used in its defense. As some of the early church fathers posited, deception is justified, and can be used, to defend church doctrine and dogma. The creationists consider the Bible as very critical to their and our salvation. That to them is far more important than the problem of using deception to defend it. So creationists become sly and tricky. They use Sleight of Hand (or Mind) methods. They say, for example, that the universe is a intelligent design ; of course the intelligent designer is in the end the God of the Bible. But that's not mentioned in their arguments. They'll pull that rabbit out of the hat if their scientific sounding words happen to work. It's like they have a grab bag. If one scientific sounding argument won't work -- ID -- they reach in and pull out another; like IC-irreducible complexity. It's oxymoronic. They defend the Bible by not using the Bible. To try and save us from the apostasy from the Bible they see happening in modernity. But the Bible was written way before science. There's no point for a scientist to go to the Bible as a manual for his or her research. For that matter, if I wanted to build a computer I'm not going to use the Bible as a manual to do it ; or even to just fix my car. And that's why literal Biblical creationist are so desperate. Because in our modern world the Bible is ever more becoming irrelevant to our modern needs. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. (1.3) |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Sorry, Harold, but surely you can see the humor in this. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Mark Twain had a few things to say about this sub-forum ...
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...137eccc7c1.jpg |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
I guess that settles it. The Bible beats Science. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
I haven't seen anything but a few questions and statements from yourself without supporting evidence. But a few things that you didn't address...back to Bible vs Science -Do you consider acceptance of the evidence of evolution the same as faith in the Bible? Is belief in evolution faith? -What is different behind checking the facts and deciding to leave a church movement(LC), and making observations in the natural world? -After further discussion and after reading a few dictionary definitions...do you still think that evolution is "by definition" creation without God? -Do you agree or disagree that their is overwhelming evidence that points towards evolution(change over time)? If not, why not? What holes does it have? What do you make of it all? What is stupid about it? -How do you explain the fluke? ~Joseph |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
I was accused of being desparately deceptive and more ... So I admitted it. Then I completely admitted my guilt by pleading scripture. And to further your cause, I used Twain's quote to ask why you would even bother to argue with such a stupid person as myself. Go back and read again how demeaning awareness' post was towards the likes of Bible-believing posters like me. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
My sincere apologies Ohio-I did not realize that it was self directed.
I do not believe awareness is accusing you of those particular traits. Just the same way we can talk of the LC's history and still appreciate individual dear saints...we talk of the movement(creationism) in general. ~Joseph |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Sorry, mea culpa, and all that. Do you subscribe to ID & IC? |
Re: Bible Versus Science
So this thread is Bible v. Science.
Well science is winning. Thanks to the courts. The courts have kicked the Bible, and prayer, out of our classrooms. The courts have kicked Intelligent Design out of science classes; and arguments such as irreducible complexity have been marginalized, in our schools. So since the point of education is to teach how to think, our children aren't inclined to superstitious thinking, especially not as much as during the time when the Bible was written. And this has got Bible believers squirming and up in arms. That's why there's been court adjudications. That they've lost, btw. That's why I said they are desperate enough to resort to non-Bible tricks to win. It's pretty obvious that they are very upset. And maybe should be. Our children are turning away from religion like never before. They've been educated without the Bible ; as much of it is not scientific, and so looks silly to them. This is important to Bible believers. It means to them that these kids are headed to eternal damnation. And that's why it's boiled down to: The Bible Verses Science. If Jesus4Me hasn't flown the coop we might find out why he created this thread. But it likely has something to do with science coming along and denigrating the credibility of the Bible. And it does indeed strike me of desperation, to hang onto it by the finger nails. That's also likely why he feels so compelled to quote verse after verse ... even if and when it doesn't apply, or prove anything ; it's his way of proving the Bible. And none of this is meant to be personal toward anyone out here. Just tell me if I'm lying or not, or how I've got it wrong. Just take another look at all the creationists arguments and tell me I'm wrong: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The courts have done a lot. But it is mostly based upon the position that government-funded schools should not be teaching any particular religion as fact. And while I like the Christian religion (duh!) I am not entirely put off by that fact. But that means that being kicked out of the classroom cannot be viewed as any kind of determination of correctness, or lack thereof, of what is in the Bible. Of course, there is a significant question as to what the Bible actually says about a lot of things that we often consider the purview of science. It really says almost nothing about the way the universe, all the way down to man, was created. It just puts the hand of God behind it. It even says that "the land brought forth" at least once, so there is ambiguity as to what it means. But while some of the "important" positions that Christians take may be simply superstitious, it is a little presumptuous to declare that having a reasonable Christian belief is somehow contrary to rational thinking. No, it is not simply arguable as true in the way that so many apologists try to do it. There is faith in the things of God. But when you really get down to it, the Bible was never about explaining science, so even having this thread is a bit of a misdirection. The Bible is not v science. It really doesn't talk about science. Even where the earlier writers waxed poetic about some of the wonders of the world or how they understood things to work, those poor descriptions (from a scientific perspective) were not intended to create factual understandings of the world, but that was all they knew to proclaim the wonders of God. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
I think this Bible v. Science thread is a false setup. Cuz, it's not an either/or choice. What we are actually faced with today, with the Bible and Science, is and/both. We don't have to keep one and throw out the other. There's been lots of Bible believing scientists. The infamous Issac Newton was one, among many. Personally I see great value in the Bible and in Science. And in philosophy and mythology as well. I don't see why we have to reject any of them. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
In the greater scheme of things, evolution's primary objective is to negate the existence for God who created all things. Every fact and study then serves to endorse that narrative. Truly objective scientific study is no longer possible because all new evidence must be properly interpreted to fit their evolutionary theories. The Bible is not a science book, but an historical record of man wrt to God. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
No. It is the people of today who are determined that it is literal who are trying to make it into a detailed telling of exactly how it happened. I do not believe that the Bible is involved other than as an unwilling participant. And my biggest evidence of this is that those who are taking these positions are too often acting most un-Christian in the process. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
If the Bible wins do we have to get off our computers?
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
1 Attachment(s)
I like bringing articles to the forum and here is another one on The Living Universe by Dr Nigel Tomes.
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The facts do fit the narrative...and that is very objective. At this point the only real debate is the fine mechanisms of evolution...not whether it happened. Tons of other laws and theories in science go against the biblical record...since science cannot accept miracles as explanations. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
I think it is unfair for religion and christianity to get into this debate. Religion needs to stop trying to explain the natural world.
The questions science has trouble with since it is not quite in its jurisdiction, although much and some argue all of this canbe explained by biology sociology...such as joy and meaning of life, morality, community, are fair game for faith and experiental explanations. It seems natural for humankind to appeal to a personal deity for inner support and meaning. So long as it does not cloud reason that is a.ok Again, the problem is when religion tries to explain the natural world and conform it to dogma. Science has tossed outdated ideas many times. Why cant religion just stop defending these hopeless creation narratives? Even when I was Christian I found the willingness to ignore evidence and spread flat out lies about science extremely embarrassing. I heard many of the falsehoods...such as Darwin recanting his theory on his deathbed (scientifically trained people realize that even if true this would not affect the merit of the theory of evolution and thus it shows fundamental ignorance of the scientific process) exposed on talkorigins stated to me as fact when young. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Here is a book written by a Catholic(who happens to be a prominent scientist)
http://www.amazon.com/Only-Theory-Ev.../dp/0143115669 |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Terry: That article is intriguing. I can't say I know much about physics.
But science cannot imply a supernatural being existed-as that would be untestable. The essay does not give clear criteria that must be met-and cannot. We only get to a dawn of time where their was a beginning and so this perhaps implies a Creator of the universe. Some new theories aside from the Big Bang make some interesting implications of cyclic expansion and contraction...and some physicists are still adamant atheists anyway. Just the same as people can be confronted with overwhelming evidence for evolution but still disregard it as it infringes on their beliefs. I realize that our belief in a Creator and a particular religion is much less to do with our rational observation than we would like to admit. I was raised Christian and told what to believe when I was young and impressionable. Had things have gone as they often do I would then tell my own children when they were young and impressionable, and thusly ideas many would not otherwise entertain are passed down through the generations like the joy of fishing. I freely admit that if it weren't for the circumstances that prompted me into leaving the local church I would have continued along on my merry way even though I realized I was living two separate ways of explaining the world. I did always lean against the literal interpretation of Creation accounts...but more important than any sense or need for being all correct was a need for belonging-which required a certain belief system. Once that belonging vanished, I was free to look at the belief system in a more objective light. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Still, I could not reconcile a 6,000 year existence for the entire universe. What about fossils? What about those woolly mammoths from the last ice age? What about, what about? It wasn't until I realized that the earth was far older than man, did things make sense. The Bible does not give us the story of the beginning of the universe, but rather the story of man's beginning. Obviously this earth has had a long history before Adam came on the scene. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
As did I. I have some deeply personal memoirs professing faith in Gods creation of this earth in a gap theory acceptable manner. This is at least partly due to the culture I was raised up in. I've since been going back to my common assumptions and re-examining them which has indeed lead to change. It is very strange-a bit hurtful even to write over such genuine convictions-people assume that those who deconvert must not have actualky had faith-i disagree. I didn't like the idea of myfamily and myself being wrong...or worsebeing lead astray. But it became easier to really look at the evidence upon being emotionally divested.
Reading further though I realized that mans history goes back much further than Adams...this speaking strictly of human history. And as I have posted...it then leads to the history of all life on earth. It was a bit unnerving to realize that. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
A big part of that is willingness to look at evidence that could change what you think. I happily read jesus4me's links. New information does not worry me anymore...and you learn how to decide accuracy based on evidence
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
And admittedly, as I age, I become more and more suspicious. I'm not the blank slate I once was. Science is regularly manipulated and funded by politics for base gains. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
That is true. Actually evidence itself cannot be biased...unless falsified or picked selectively...as we observed with creatinists. Interpretations can be...but the great thing about that is we can go look at the evidence ourselves.
Of all fields though science is the least prone to bias. Scientists are far more concerned than most about being objective. It happens, but is solved by testing. It doesnt matter how adamant you are about your idea if the facts fail to support it.a the great thing about science is peer review...which looks carefully for that sort of bias. Certainly people are skeptical of science conducted by those who may have vested interest...such as drug testing done by scientists employed by those companies that manufacture the drugs. So they go and do their own tests! Sciencetists are by nature cautious...but the media enjoys spinning a good story. Reading the original paper abstract is one way around that. Other scienctists would be the worst enemy of a biased or untrustworthy scientist. They are always trying to pick apart each others work. If everyone is figuring out the same thing and it continues to be supported with overwhelming evidence...it eventually gets called a theory...like gravity, or evolution. That is different than an agenda. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
I appreciated it, but was somewhat dumbfounded by it. Take this quote from it: "• U of T Astronomer sees the Fingerprints of God" My first thought was, why not DNA of God? Why just fingerprints of God? Look, yes we human primates are limited. But God is suppose to be unlimited. Can't God do a better job of revealing himself than just fingerprints? Fingerprints are not enough for me. How do we know if they are God's fingerprints, and not fingerprints of another unknown something? Apparently we never took God's fingerprints in the first place, to make a match. In fact, if we had DNA we still wouldn't be able to determine whose DNA it is? I don't think we can read either God's fingerprints or DNA. Cuz we can't actually get at them, or match them to God's. So "seeing the fingerprints of God" is very weak evidence. Maybe a scientist is saying it, but it's not scientific evidence in the least. And this scientist at U of T knows it. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Yes. That is strictly an opinion of said scientist-no way to test it.
If God were to have left specifics about the universe he created than it might be testable to determine if the universe we know matches that of a particular "instruction manual" so to speak. Some Bible scholars claim that scientists should just look to be Bible but they verses they quote describing the universe are vague to the extreme. If we look for evidence to back creation and flood accounts in the Bible(and many have) we these stories fail miserably to match the evidence. So if we take the literal interpretation the Biblical account of Creation has been disproven. This does not disprove existence of a deity/Creator, however. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Our assembly is doing the Explore God series and this week was on the Bible. The preacher had an interesting point to make from the standpoint of a DTS-trained theologian who even taught there for a while. He said that the agnostic and atheistic scientists are mostly biased against the very idea of the supernatural, but will not admit that they have a bias. On the other hand, they point to the fact that we are clearly biased in favor of the supernatural. The difference is that we own our bias. They do not.
It is true that you cannot test for the supernatural — for God. But when there is no testable solution, it leaves the possibility of the supernatural and they refuse to even accept that it could be true. I can accept that the earth could have been created — artifacts in place — in 6 days, or 6,000 years. Or it could have been created billions or even trillions of years ago as we count time. And man could have been made as two people — adults — who failed to live up to God's standard. Or as the result of a long string of evolutionary steps. But whether the former of the latter, whether in 6 days or trillions of years, something outside of what we know caused it to be as it is today. There was no big bang from nothing. And if we point to a prior civilization, then theirs is similarly with a need for a start. It begs for something from a realm that is completely different from our world of molecules, DNA, time, etc. We have a record of a God that is not just the creation of the writers, but interacted in a way that was tangible. We have reason to believe that God is that source — that spark — that made it all and calls it to work as He designs, not as we would have it. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
It's one thing to not believe in the supernatural; it's another to refuse to consider its possibility. And it's disingenuous to never discuss the matter because one is a "scientist." |
Re: Bible Versus Science
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601_1.html
Scientists are not one single belief system. Some are indeed biased against the idea of a deity, some embrace the idea of a deity. I think many(and I speak for my current beliefs as well) are against the idea of the supernatural interceding and affecting what is natural. The only way this might be demonstrated would be via miracles that cannot be explained naturally. Searching for a miracle or visible case of supernatural(and this is warned about in the Bible itself) I think is a great way to fall into the trap of some trickster or simply away from reason. I remember at a home-meeting when I was in high school a visiting girl told me that her parents told her the reason she was being bad tempered and swearing was because she must have had a demon. Cornered and asked what I thought I told her that was ridiculous. It is not bias if your alarm bells go off when someone invokes a supernatural cause to explain a natural phenomena. This by no means disregards a personal God. However, by its very nature the supernatural is outside of the realm of science, and so scientists must avoid supernatural consideration or explanation. This is different than a bias against. Do you want scientists to appeal to the God gap when they cannot explain something? Do realize that this God gap shrinks alarmingly as science methodically plods forward in explaining all sorts of(very useful!) stuff that we should have apparently thrown our hands up in the air and denoted supernatural causes for. If we simply had assumed that diseases were judgement from God we would still be in the Dark ages. Science is also ok with not knowing. I don't know much about theoretical physics but I hear of all sorts of exciting new ideas that may eclipse the Big Bang Theory in its popularly known state. Scientists could certainly accept earth's creation in 6 days except for the fact that the evidence does not suggest this. It is unfair to give that idea equal ground with science that is rigorously tested for the sole purpose of it being appealing to ones belief system. If you told someone their was no cup on a desk-and then they found a cup...you would rightly call them crazy if they continued to behave like the cup may not have existed. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Surely a good scientist will keep on looking within the realm of science for any answers it can provide. But when you get to the end of it all and you either have a supernatural creation in 6 days, or the supernatural beginning of matter in what is sometimes called the big bang (or alternately, an unexplained beginning to it all no matter where/when it happened), the writing off the supernatural seems a bit much. Especially when the very premise of the big bang is that something that could not happen actually happened. It screams for supernatural, no matter what the source of the "super" is. It is clearly beyond what is natural. Not saying that the supernatural has to be the answer . . . just that there is nothing other than their bias against the possibility that removes it from consideration. And while I still have my assumed bias, I can confess that if science can come up with a rational explanation for it all that does not eventually dead-end into something coming from nothing, then I will have to consider whether that is proof of no God or evidence of how He did it. Not holding my breath. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Not saying I am a proponent of that position. But neither do I simply dismiss it because science in a world without the supernatural would reject it. If I were a betting man, I would put my money on an ancient earth with something roughly approximating evolution having been in progress. How there could be man somewhat suddenly needs no clear definition. The thing that made man different was the direct intervention of God. If the forming from the dust was metaphorically the results of evolution, followed by the breath of God changing something into the nature of what was now "man," I could buy that. I could also buy a more recently created race, although the whole idea of a somewhat significant number of humans by the time of the story of Cain and Abel suggests it is not as simple as Adam and Eve had two kids, then a third to replace the first, etc. No idea where any of this leads. And I have yet to figure out what part of faith in God is messed with by not holding to creation as 6 days. Or Adam as the singular first man. Even the NT references back are not harmed by a metaphorical fall. And the number of references to things that ultimately changed, like slavery, gives a certain level of question to the NT reference(s) to the woman being the start of the fall. (Can't say "cause" because the effects were not felt until they both "ate" and their eyes were opened. Looks like a joint effort to me.) |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Again-scientists come from all sorts of faiths. Many personally believe that a supernatural deity wrote the laws of the universe and pulled the proverbial pin to set it in motion. Many dont. Maybe the explanation is not full but they dont see the need for a Creator. The objective evidence does better supporting that then it does at supporting creation stories of any religion (namely by not supporting any religions creation story).If you paint belief in a deity as either or(and I hugely disagree here...deities can have different levels of interceding in natural happenings) then I suppose we are all biased, but I disagree that all have equal weight in opinion.
I would differ in rejecting the idea of a supernatural created a world which would lay flawless evidence for things that didnt happen...creating trees in the garden with rings denoting time they never lived. I mean that is nuts! This sort of thing just muddles and confuses as much as people trying to decide if good/bad things happen because of god/satan. Does faith necessitate believing the whole bible literally? If so the rejecting the creation story definitely is not compatible. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Facts are very stubborn things. Galileo, a pious Catholic, and considered the father of science, was branded a heretic and put under house arrest, by the church, for championing heliocentrism, against the chuch's held geocentrism. Galileo's facts won out. It only took over 300 years for the church to apologize for what they did to Galileo. But they had no choice. Facts are facts. And so it goes, and will go. Science will always win out because science is based upon facts, not superstition. That's not to say there aren't those that deny facts. The Flat Earth Society is an example. But here is an interesting fact: "Something unknown is doing we don't know what."Here we can most certainly make the leap of faith and say, "Of course, God is doing it." But Sir Arthur doesn't make that leap (or he does, but not with a typical religious theological explanation). Sir Arthur is just stating a fact, that whatever is going on is inexplicable. Is he biased against religion for not making that leap of faith? Of course not. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
And I never said that there are not scientists that believe. So continually saying that there are scientists with different positions on the supernatural is not really important to the discussion. Quote:
The real question is whether you end out with a flawed God under any such reading. So far I fail to arrive at that conclusion in any rendering. But I arrive at a lot of dogmatic believers based on one version v another. Those that foam at the mouth about 6 days. Or the gap theory. Or intelligent design of any type. Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
I did agree with you that some scientists are biased against the supernatural. But I see that as 100x more understandable and reasonable than those biased against science.
Perhaps it can be compared to a pendulum swinging back and forth, and myself personally after pushing off on the "religion and supernatural" side am pretty far swung over to the "science and reason" side at the moment I see what you are saying if you are to take it as a metaphor(this puts you at odds with Bible literalists such as the original poster). Many people(like Al Gore) like the "frog in a boiling pot" metaphor. I have not experimented but am certain this metaphor does not work in real life. If you toss a frog in a pot of boiling water-it will die. And a frog sitting in a pot of water slowly heated will jump out(actually-try to keep a frog in a pot of any water for very long!) But the message the analogy sends does hold. Awareness again says it better than I do. Since so many scientists spend much time fighting to ensure that even facts are taken at face value it probably leaves a very bitter taste in their mouth for any supernatural anything. If belief in supernatural is associated with fact denying-do you think they want to be signed up or give it any sort of consideration? |
Re: Bible Versus Science
You are correct that there is a bias by certain Christians against what science has discovered to be true because they hold to an uncertain reading of the Bible that cannot tolerate what science has found.
That is the flip side of the coin. And I agree with you that those are sometimes a bit nuts. On the other side are some who insist that science has proved what it cannot — that nothing became something. That out of nothing — no electrons, protons, etc. — something as vast as the universe came to be because of a single explosion in which nothing ignited (what caused the spark or exploded if there was nothing?) and created something. Or if they admit that science has not proved it, they insist that the answer is in a different kind of belief system. One that involves aliens. Alternate universes. Prior universes. And so on. Something not provable — having no footprint of evidence in our observable environment. But they generally won't admit that it is a belief — a kind of faith with no evidence. Really, just a different kind of supernatural. And if there is a prior life force that aided, then a different kind of god. They just refuse the moniker. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The Bible is not a science book; it is a history book. It is the history of man in relation to God. Since the Bible clearly states that man was created by God, and that all things came into being thru Jesus Christ, then of course I view the evolution of apes into man and the Big Bang as nonsensical theories designed by the god of this age to deceive us. For me the age of the universe and the earth are in inconsequential. Neither do I equate the Bible with the views of the Roman church. Their persecution of round earth scientists was neither scientific nor Biblical, rather it was the abuse of power surrounded by superstitions. That was the reason for the "dark ages." Once the masses unlocked the scripture, western man entered a whole new age of scientific, engineering, and medical discovery. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
He was also deeply into Biblical prophecy. But we won't know if he actually figured it out. As he predicted the end would come in 2060. At any rate, to Newton it wasn't the Bible verses Science. So maybe Jesus4Me got it wrong. I guess we'll never know ... as he appears to have shaken our dust off his feet. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
One Christian went so far to explain away the dinosaurs by claiming that they were just lizards that had an unlimited supply of food, and that's why they got so big. Then there are other Bible believers that actually claim that all the scientists are colluding to bring God and the Bible down, and that's the sole purpose of the Hubble telescope. That makes it understandable why Richard Dawkins claims they are under a God delusion. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
I would cite numerous archaeological and biological scientists who are not sold out on the theory of evolution to bolster my case. They live and breathe the same "evidence" and have reached different conclusions. Sadly the prevailing godless system mutes their voices. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Here's interesting findings from Pew:
Religion and Science Highly religious Americans are less likely than others to see conflict between faith and science. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/2...-and-religion/ |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Any more than folk dont want evolution to be true?
Ohio: that is also addressed in the talkorigins link handily. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Religion and Science
Highly religious Americans are less likely than others to see conflict between faith and science. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/2...-and-religion/ "we don't look at scientific questions. We don't look at religious questions. We look at human questions, and try to see where science and religion can contribute to the conversation." http://sinaiandsynapses.org/ |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Very interesting awareness....what is your interpretation of the data?
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
(Luke 11.52) |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
I like: "we don't look at scientific questions. We don't look at religious questions. We look at human questions, and try to see where science and religion can contribute to the conversation." What do you think? |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Funny! |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
But the Quantum Physicist Author Eddington may have been getting close when he remarked: "Something unknown is doing we don't know what." What that reveals tho is that something is still going on. Meaning, the universe is still going thru a creation process. Or as astrophysicist's observe, it's still expanding ... or evolving. Maybe you could explain to me why you think God and evolution can't coexist. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
So to say you want God to be proven is like saying you want the Identity Principle (A is A) to be proven. It can't be but you still live by it. Why accept A = A and not accept God? So Dawkins is making excuses hiding behind the scientific principle expecting God to be proven for him. It ought to be easy to speculate that if God exists he could exempt himself from being subject to his own creation in that manner. Demanding that God be proven by science is saying science is necessarily greater than God. Saying "as a scientist I require God to be proven" is like saying "as a musician I require God to be represented as sheet music" or "as a programmer I require God to be represented as source code." Your asking God to submit to the little way you look at the world. It's just arrogant. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
It's called: "theistic evolution." Theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is a natural process within that creation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accept...ligious_groups |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Macro evolution is bad science whether God exists or not. The only reason the theory exists is to try to account for varieties of life on earth without a supernatural cause. If everyone accepted a Creator it would be discarded, because it wouldn't be needed and there is absolutely no evidence it ever happened anyway.
I just laugh now when I see those National Geographic covers showing "Our Early Ancestors." It's really sad. Evolution is a total joke. The theories for the Origin of Life are even worse. They are just terrible science. They are really just the sacraments of a secular religion. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Discarding evolution as terrible science and a joke? What basis is there for that? Again I dont understand why it is so intimidating a theory that you must twist and redefine it.
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Ican once again point to the predictive power of the theory. No other explanation can encapsulate all the neat discoveries the way it does. To characterize evolution the way you are is a display of willfull ignorance.
Creation science is bad science...links provided previously. Igzy id be curious to see evidence for why evolution is "bad science". Inconvenient discoveries maybe. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Awareness: reading further into that article I conclude that those who do not see religion and science in conflict are likely disregarding science that does conflict with their beliefs as bad or not science. Many of those not meeting do so precisely because of this fight against reason. Those folk at the creation museum likely believe their faith is in line with science.
Note the unaffiliated and those meeting less than 1x weekly are more accepting of evolution. evangelical least. This unfortunately stands at odds with your explanation imo. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The fossil record is more supportive of creation than evolution. That's a fact. Species just appear out of nowhere in the fossil record. There are no significant transitory versions of species, and there are no where near close as many as there should be. Why not? Evolution is not science. It's wishful thinking masquerading as science. I do not understand the point of believing in it, except to try to discredit creation. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Back in my college days (so long ago that the news was still about the pending ice age) I had a great roommate. A great friend. He was a black brother from the ghetto of Cleveland. He was well-loved by all the saints, and always spoke for the Lord. He was street-smart, sharp as a tack, but not what I would call "good college material." The ghetto never prepared their people for academia. Now brother Mike was a good looking brother, but the funny thing was that his facial profile was very similar to Neanderthal man. Not something others would immediately notice and laugh at, but I sure did. I never laughed directly at him, but was laughing about God's marvelous creation. God had created brother Mike to look like a 20th century Neanderthal, except for all the hair. Dear brother Mike helped to expose the nonsense of man's evolution to me at a young age. Some archaeologist years back must have exhumed Mike's twin and promoted him as the forerunner of Cro-Magnon man. Bogus science all right. Full of hypocrisy! God sure has a sense of humor. Here's Mike right in the middle ... https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...UFW44uakJC0H4Q |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
*Jiggins CD, Bridle JR (2004). "Speciation in the apple maggot fly: a blend of vintages?". Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 19 (3): 111–4. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2003.12.008. PMID 16701238. *Boxhorn, J (1995). "Observed Instances of Speciation". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 26 December 2008. *Kirkpatrick, Mark; Virginie Ravigné (March 2002). "Speciation by Natural and Sexual Selection: Models and Experiments". The American Naturalist 159 (3): S22–S35. doi:10.1086/338370. ISSN 0003-0147. JSTOR 3078919. PMID 18707367. Of course it's all just part of a giant conspiracy cooked up by morality evading liberal atheists posing as biologists in order to persecute and defeat Christianity. Right Ohio? ;) |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Thank you zeek. Jesus4me obviously couldnt or wouldnt understand the lack of a line between micro and macroevolution.
The fossil record, considering the miniscule chances of the fossilization and discovery of any species...is phenomenal. It certainly wrecks any attempt to use it to justify genesis as the order of groups appearing does not match. I already provided links to beautiful fossils if you wish to look and learn. Ohio: cute story and graphic ( the linear progression does not match what actually occuredbut is a simplified concept). Pokes no holes whatsoever in the human evolution theories. If you are truly interested I can recommend some good books and articles to really learn about our natural history. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
But that aside, to me, it's one point for science that they are open to being wrong, and one point against religion that it's not. Evolution opposer's may not care, one way or another, if it turns out that they end up grouped in with those that held onto a flat earth. That we've decoded the genome, and are working on decoding the genome of all species, should cause any thinking person pause before they hastily deny evolution. Here's a small example; from evolutionary research at Oxford University's Research Laboratory for Archaeology: Our study shows that evolution canhttp://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2015-10-28-...ster-thought-0 One last word. It's obvious that scientists are taking evolution very serious. To say that that is secular religion is nothing less than projection from behind religious eyes ... or drawn from such a wide generalization that makes everything humans do religious activity. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
What is a real science book? One that omits stuff that butts against your belief system? If science is being judged as it should be(by whether the facts and evidence stand up) then you should be able to read anything. I happily dissected Jesus4me's link to a creationist website that gave a valiant attempt at arguing against chromosomal evolution. I learned a lot that day, and was for a brief moment wondering if those authors were onto something until I noted a few incorrect assumptions-handily explained. Many links have been provided for you and Igzy to read but you seem to refuse to read them. Awareness: Indeed it is better to learn daily and be frequently wrong than willfully ignorant and always correct. I am often wrong, but that is a learning opportunity-not some blow to my ego. I have been in many a debate where the other side presented good evidence and I changed my opinion. Just very recently I came across a post on Facebook lambasting the idea of herd immunity. I mentioned he should do more research. He promptly sent me a link to some research on some issues with vaccines ability to actually create herd immunity-which I forwarded to a pathologist friend of mine for help with as it seemed credible but I had never heard that side of the story. I could have stuck to my guns that all people who are skeptical of the efficacy of certain vaccines are stupid antivaxxers who are adamant that the government is trying to poison them for profit with vaccines-but the opposing side presented peer reviewed research that showed that this debate is not so one sided. The idea that those who are more deeply religious are more comfortable with science does not hold with that data set presented in your link. It seems that those who are more deeply religious have less scientific knowledge and so less to be uncomfortable with. I would love to believe that those deeply religious are also deeply scientific and have reach some nirvana of understanding between the two. I'm sure those individuals are out there, but not the norm. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The question is, if they are deluded is it harmful? Or like Thomas Jefferson wrote: "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782 |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
One thing I noted in that article is that those who were less religious and more scientifically minded tended to be more environmentally friendly. The idea that we are part of the natural world rather than above it really changes the nature of our interactions with the natural world. It is much harder to turn a blind eye at the desecration of ecosystems and the suffering of life we are causing if we don't cling to the idea that it is inevitable and that a new heaven and new earth await after we die. I think their are many things that humanity universally appreciates no matter what belief system they adhere to, and a wholesome place to live is one of them. I have no problem with folk believing whatever they want personally-but if they try to skew facts of the natural world to fit that agenda that is not ok. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151...ding-shaped-us |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
But the fact that modern humans of today have DNA from early primitive humans can't be denied. We come out of the early hunting and gathering tribes. And this brings to mind, a fantasy I see in Paul's writings. Paul says that in Christ we are new creations; that the old man is buried and the new man is risen in Christ. But even back when I had no sense, in the local church, that didn't add up. I saw much evidence that the old man wasn't buried at all but was very much alive and well. And one aspect of the old man, the old creation, that clearly stuck out is evidenced by our tribalism ; that clearly was still embedded in our primitive DNA. In the end I concluded that Paul was just being idealistic when he wrote those things. Cuz clearly the Corinthians weren't a new creation. And neither was it true in the local church ... nor for any other "born again" fundamentalists and dogmatists. It's just a fantasy, absent of any proof. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
The evidence is compelling. We do share some DNA with plants(I think something along the lines of 30% as a guess). This is to be expected. Certainly less than we share with Chimpanzees or Neanderthals.
The strange thing is that we even inherited some of the mistakes in their DNA. Why do we need Vitamin C? Most other vertebrates can make it...but we happen to have inherited a "broken gene" from our ancestors-which codes then for an enzyme that no longer functions that works in other animals but not the primates like us. Luckily our diets tend to be high in Vit C so as long as we are not aboard some sailing ship it was not a huge disadvantage. http://thehumanevolutionblog.com/201...eat-vitamin-c/ |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Ohio: what evidence do we have of humans being perfect and then becoming "imperfect". Why does the lack of that evidence and the presence of this evidence upset you? Their is evidence that human health declined upon agriculture becoming a mainstay due to very limited diets consisting of only a couple plants(no sin required here)...way before the genesis story btw. But no evidence has come to light of the outlandish longevity recorded in genesis. And even though early finds of mastodon bones were mis ided as such...no evidence of giants either. They did find all sorts of other fossils but you probably dont want to see them.
While the gene may be broken, clearly humans and primates are getting along just fine. But it leaves clues to our evolution. It is one thing to disagree if the evidence does not stack. It is another if it just doesnt jive with your worldview or personal beliefs. Nature isnt in the business of protecting worldviews sorry. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Perhaps it is your worldviews that are blinded by your source(s) of news. Like you said, man used to live hundreds of years, and now can barely make it to one hundred. If not for science, mankind might not get old enough to even reproduce. It doesn't look to me as if we are going in the right direction. Evolution also implies that our intelligence is increasing. Why is it that our best engineers and scientists still don't know how they built the pyramids and other ancient wonders. Sounds to me like those stone age neanderthals were smarter than we are. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Yes, I have looked into AIDS and the increase in STDS: With the globalization of modern humanity it is easier for disease epidemics to travel. Also, with billions of humans on the planet the chances are much higher for a novel pathogen to jump species. You can read all about AID's origins and spread-their are a couple theories out there-all evidence based with no need to invoke "sin and God's judgement". Also-with new technology it is now possible to find viruses and pathogens that once would be passed off as "well-that feller just looked bad and then upped and died". No evidence exists that man is any less promiscuous then than he is now. Animals have all sorts of STD's too(and no, their was not a period "before the fall" when they were all herbivores and disease free-sorry). Heck, even pterosaurs and dinosaurs appeared to suffer from lice and biting flies-way before the supposed fall. I remember Ron Kangas musing he didn't believe God made the mosquito. Well-something has been evolving all sorts of creatures that take advantage of other life long before man arrived on the seen
I did not say man used to live for hundreds of years. Selective reading much? I did note that hunter gatherers did live on average longer than early agriculturalists(who if I remember correctly 40 was a good life)...certainly not hundreds of years as batted around in the Bible. I did mention their is no evidence to support these Biblical accounts-did you read that? Since the advent of modern medicine mankind has been living longer each generation on average. It doesn't seem like we live significantly longer than the hunter gatherers did-just that a much lower percentage of the population died from disease etc. So again, no golden age where man lived much longer than today. Modern man has begun to suffer from diseases of affluence due for the most part to inactivity and a diet different than we have eaten most of our evolutionary history-and many of these can be explained by new selection pressures different from our evolutionary history. Unfortunately things that were once scarce that it was beneficial evolutionarily to crave(sugar, the chance to lay around like a bump on a log and get fat) now are regular parts of our lifestyle that we were not evolved for. Intelligence is a pretty tough thing to measure-certainly over a short period of time like that. Egyptians were modern humans as much as we are. Neanderthals actually had slightly larger brains for their body size and they survived eons in a frozen world of the North-we certainly would have great difficulty duplicating that. The idea of them being stupid is to comfort modern men(perhaps of religious bend who wish to believe they were divinely created) into thinking we are greatly different than they are. If not the Neanderthals-then creationists try to distance themselves from or flatten the evidence of other fossils. "Oh, that is clearly a human" "Nah-that is just an ape". Of course, since it is a lovely gradient the creationists can't agree on which is which as they try to draw thick dividing lines in the sands of evolutionary time. Today we benefit greatly from the knowledge of the community as a whole. I mean how many modern humans could track an animal or figure out what plants to eat to survive in a forest? Take a Yanamamo Indian from the Amazon and transport him to the Kalahari and see how he does? And vise versa? Apparently at the 100th anniversary of flight some people got together to try to rebuild the original Wright Flyer...did not go well...so much background knowledge that we gain from our cultures and experiences at the time. And I bet scientists are getting closer every day to explaining in more and more detail how the pyramids were built. All this knowledge requires the use of inquiry based reasoning-something religion seems to eschew. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Lots of speculations here friend, but I have an actual history book of man to go by.
Btw, did you see my post about my close friend back in college who looked like neanderthal man? |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Lisbon |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Actual history book? Please. I have offered actual evidence that invalidates such claims. I already replied about your friend...im actually quizzical about why you see that as something that would be a problem for the current explanation of how we evolved.
Lisbon: The fossil record has offered up excellent evidence already linked in this thread. Again...their is no rational argument against whether evolution happened...just some fine details on mechanisms. No controversy here any more than gravity. What has been realized over the years is that every animal is a link. Darwins literature is sort of dense for some...but I found him a great read. He makesbold predictions andmany turn out correct. He is a naturalist par excellence. It goes without saying that I am too familiar with theBible. Origin of the Species I wish I had read sooner. And no, Darwin did not recant on his deathbed, and this has no bearing on whetherevolution is true. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Quote:
Wikipedia goes on to list a bunch of "missing links" in case your interested. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Thank you Zeek, excellent.
I actually found a car decal online that instead of the classic Darwin fish(which I find misleading as it implies we hold him up the same way a religious figure might be upheld) and Tiktaalik inscribed in the middle. Perfect. Unfortunately the magnet was not as strong as you would expect so it likely lives somewhere on Dinky Creek road at this point! |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Let's face it science is here to stay. Will it replace the Bible, for the devoted? Not likely, I don't think so. But the more science develops & advances, the more the Bible can't speak to it. Coming out of the bronze and Iron age the Bible is prescience. Given what they knew back then the Biblical creation account is a masterpiece. However, if our starting premise is the Bible then, we're gonna have lots of problems with science. Darwin is an example. He left the premise of the Bible and made science his premise. And sure the astrophysicists cook up some fantastical theories. Like the Big Bang. But if we're gonna dismiss the fantastical theories of the scientist how can we not also dismiss the fantastical creation story in the Bible? We're all just trying to explain how everything, including us, got here. None of us know, and likely ever will know, the answer to that question. I guess it's easier to just say God did it. Scientists aren't happy with that answer. But thank God for science. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
A dirty little secret is that now the science says that homo sapiens did NOT evolve from cro magnon. DNA evidence proves it.
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Funny how we contrive these sorts of ideas. But isn't "God said let there be" just as wild? And it does say we're made of the dust of the ground. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Back to Bible v. Science: "The effort to reconcile science and religion is almost always made, not by theologians, but by scientists unable to shake off altogether the piety absorbed with their mother's milk. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Evidence of another transitional species or "missing link" for evolution deniers to explain away: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/ani...n-and-feathers
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
All seriousness aside. The Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs so they never existed. God, when He created the earth 6,000 yrs ago, put those bones there to fool us. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Exactly: The only possibilities for reconciling this sort of evidence require either ignoring your conscience or burying your head in the sand of fundamentalist explan-awayism. The idea that anyone would consider that explanation IMO means something is very, very, wrong with the rational mind.
"Human intelligence is one of the most fragile things in nature. It doesn't take much to distract it, suppress it, or even annihilate it." ~Neil Postman |
Re: Bible Versus Science
And then we end up with train wrecks like this
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...ible?CMP=fb_us Strangely the guy hearkens to evolution to explain away the arks clear inability to house all of the modern diversity of life. Perhaps the time of the arts flotation matches one of earths mass extinctions and happened to leave no geological or sensical biological evidence...?:crazy: |
Re: Bible Versus Science
We all set ourselves up for trouble when we hang onto some fundamental and then adjust good sense to accommodate it. Evolutionists do the same thing when they say things like "the fossil record would be there if it hadn't dissolved" or when they construct a whole pre-human from one tooth that turned out to be the tooth of a pig (Nebraska Man).
The ark story can be interpreted in many ways which are viable but do not undermine the basic meaning of the story. i.e. (1) that Noah obeyed God and built a huge boat to rescue his family and a lot of animals, (2) that the known Earth flooded, (3) that this represented judgment and salvation. The animals could have just been a representative number. "Every" could have meant every animal that God sent to the ark. Obviously Noah didn't round them all up, God sent them. The flood could have simply covered the Mesopotamian area. At the same time whether we are talking about the flood or the exodus, we are talking about a situation where miracles could happen. There is no way to scientifically prove God couldn't do something he wanted to. It seems, however, the mockings on this thread are several smart alecks peeing "into the wind" (ahem) and crowing how much smarter they are than those dumb fundamentalists. It's humbling to be in the presence of such high intelligence, not to mention big egos. There is scientific and historical evidence for a Great Flood. There is also evidence of the ark, that is there enough evidence which could be the ark, whether it conclusively was the ark is another matter. The irony is there is more evidence for the flood and the ark than there is for macro evolution. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
What you never hear anyone talking about with macro evolution is, if it is real, it should still be happening. That is, there still should be all kinds of present, living transitional life forms. There should be a smooth continuum between animals. It should be very obvious. There should be half-bird-half-lizards, half-man-half-apes, etc., all over the place. But there aren't. The species are very distinct and separate. There are a few token things that might be considered evidence, if they weren't so small in number and isolated, but no where near the amount that should exist.
Macro evolution is the biggest hoax ever. It's a joke. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
A Christian ministry in Kentucky is building a 1550-metre-long (510ft) wooden boat for a planned religious theme park.They can't perform simple unit conversion math, and they want me to believe the rest of their mathematical hypotheses about the ark? :rollingeyesfrown: Here is the primary compelling reason why I believe the story of Noah and the ark: "For this is like the days of Noah to Me, When I swore that the waters of Noah Would not flood the earth again. -- Isaiah 54.9 |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Igzy: I could see a regional flood as feasible...again no evidence has been found to match. Please provide peer reviewed evidence as i have or can for all i have written. So that is all the hand wringing I can do. The idea that saving all the species from a global flood is feasible is a deep underestimation of the complexity of the natural world. But if a regional flood did happen to coincide with the noah story no clarification was made in the bible. While their is evidence today of a genetic bottleneck in our species evolutionary history it doesnt match the timing of noahs story..
How distinct and seperate are species? I discussed this in detail w jesus4me earlkier. Take a closer look at the natural world and you see the lines drawn by man for convenience begin to blur, and species grading into each other...as exhaustively discussed. I have provided links for folk to read backed by sources. Arrogance is different from credibility. Please show me how the evidence is hoaxed. Creation ists like to point at embarrassing oopsies like the piltdown man. Guess who cleared up the facts? Other scientists. And once figured out, remaining evidence validated still stands I think the fossil record we have is remarkably complete. And new discoveries are being made. I dont see anything wrong with supposing many fossils are gone. We have excellent evidence of the tumultous geological processes that obliterated many. And today we observe that most creatures fail to fossilize. So it is only by remarkable fortune that such fossils as those of early hominid species are preserved. I visited a natural history museum that showed whale fossils. wow! |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Nothing in science disproves anything the Bible actually claims. It is certain interpretations that are the problem. Quote:
The bottom line is if evolution is a fact then there should be a much better gradient fossil record than we have and there should be living gradient evidence. There should be evidence of gradience everywhere. Realize that this supposedly took millions of years. That means there should be millions of fossils for every single variation of a development. There should be ABSOLUTELY no question. Also, we should see gradience in living organisms. Why is there such a gap between man and ape now? Where are the intermediate versions? If evolution is real it should have continued. Mutations which occurred to produce higher species should have continued to occur, continuing to produce similar variations every year, like a dairy producing new milk every day. Each day there is milk in existence that's fresh, one day old, two days old, three days old, and on up to expired. Every day new milk is produced, and every day you have a representative of each different age of milk. The production is constant. That's what we should be seeing if evolution is real. We should be seeing millions of current living variations of species between fish and amphibian, amphibian and reptile, reptile and bird, bird and mammal, ape and man. I don't know how many variations between ape and man we should be seeing, but it should be a lot, maybe hundreds of different variations. They don't exist, neither now nor in the fossil record. They should exist in both if evolution is real. DNA similarities are not close to enough. We should be seeing the gradience of development right before our eyes. We don't. http://i63.tinypic.com/1zxa9y.png Quote:
Evolution is not a science. It's a secular religion desperately searching for evidence. Origins of life "science" is even worse. No one has been able to come up with a viable explanation of how life appeared on earth. Now some "scientists" are suggesting aliens brought it. The absurdity of Origin of Life is worse than Evolution. But they are two peas from the same pod. You are going to believe the "science" you want to believe. The question is your motives. Look at Richard Dawkins. His "science" is being used as a vendetta against the belief in God. There are thousands of people who want to reject God who believe him because they want to, because he is a "vetted" and "respected" scientist. It's a joke. He's a rabid religionist of the first order. Just a secular one. Like I said, everyone believes the science they want to believe. The only question is their motives. Myself included. Why don't I believe in evolution? Because I don't need to, and since I don't need to I can see it for what it is. Scientists these days are under extreme pressure to support evolution. Scientists who reject it are treated worse than conservatives in Hollywood. There is story after story of scientists and teachers being fired or discriminated against for taking a stand against evolution. Even so, more and more are jumping ship. Please don't try to tell me evolution is not a religion. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Many evolutionary scientists have finally admitted that the fossil record provides no real fossil evidence whatsoever of the millions of gradual transitional steps or "missing links" required by evolutionary theory.Grant R. Jeffrey, from his book Creation: Remarkable Evidence for God's Design pp. 211-212 Dr. Gareth Nelson, of the American Museum of Natural History, admitted [preconceived opinions govern conclusions] in the following statement: "We've got to have some ancestors. We'll pick those. Why? Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates. I am not exaggerating."Ibid. p. 208 These three fossilized remains--Peking Man, Neandrathal Man and Cro-Magnon Man--have now been proven to belong to modern humans.Ibid. pp.208-209 |
Re: Bible Versus Science
"Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it because it is the only alternative to special creation which is unthinkable."
-- Evolutionary scientist Arthur Keith "It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis [evolution] did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis that happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen is not available." --Professor G. A. Kerkut, University of Southamton (London) "We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not." -- Dr. Niles Eldredge |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Piltdown Man I & II -- Fraud. Based on nothing but skull fragment and tooth, which were dyed by instigator to appear old.
Ramapithecus -- Fraud. Based on a few teeth which turned out to be those of an orangutan. Java Man (Homo Erectus) -- Fraud. Based on skull cap, a few teeth and thighbone. Thighbone no different than modern human. Skull cap found 46 feet from other bones. Ten skeletons of clearly modern humans found at same site. Nebraska Man -- Fraud. Fossil consisted of one pig's tooth. Artist drew the following impressive picture based on this one tooth. http://www.macroevolution.net/images...250-314-27.jpg Peking Man, Neandrathal Man and Cro-Magnon Man -- All shown to be developed from remains of modern humans. If the stories of Jesus and the Bible were based on such phony and threadbare evidence Christians would be laughed off the planet. Yet evolutionists who would willfully embrace this stuff have the nerve to scoff at the Bible. Talk about blind faith! |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
And to read so many posts about those dreaded Christian fundamentalists blinded by their misguided faith dogmatically trashing the rest of mankind like some pack of Mooslim extremists ... :blahblah: Did some one once say that "wisdom is justified by her children?" |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Igzy--Please cite your sources. According to apparently more recent findings:
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
"We see that some of the alleged evolutionary "ape-men" have been deliberate hoaxes. Others have simply been cases of poor science, often motivated by overzealous and wishful thinking. We do observe evidence in the fossil record of natural variability within the ape and human populations, and a grim chronicle of disease, suffering, and death. In every case, however, the bottom line is the same: there is no fossil evidence of ape-to-man human evolution"
https://www.home-school.com/Articles...ds-hoaxes.html http://creation.com/is-there-really-...-from-the-apes http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/shame3.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man Here are some of the sources the book I'm refer to in post #157 references. There are many more. Malcom Bowden Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy (Bromley, Kent: Sovereign Publication, 1977) p.3-47 Duan T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils still say No!, (El Cajon, CA.: Institute for Creation Research, 1995) p. 326 W.A. Criswell, Did Man Just Happen?, Zondervan, 1973. p. 85 Steven Gould, The Panda's Thumb, (W.W. Norton) Frances Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, (Tickor and Fields, 1982) p. 22 Dewar and Shelton, Is Evolution Proved?, (Hollis and Carter, 1947) |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Here's an important point I hope you all get:
Evolution does not have to be proved false for the message of the Bible to be true, for God to be real and for Jesus to be real. The reason to fight evolution is that it is bad science, actually a secular religion, which gives false hope to those seeking to diminish the need for a Creator. In other words, it's fuel for those who don't want to believe in God. However, evolution does have to be true for God not to exist. Not only so, the spontaneous, random generation of life from non-living matter must also be true. Both are in very bad shape as sciences. Origin of Life is worse, but Evolution is not far behind. Both are collapsing on themselves and are only upheld by the desperation of evolutionists who dearly require a creation alternative to bolster their atheism, and, as Ohio said, with the help of government funding, media bullying and general public gullibility. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
So are all the fossils hoaxes? Their are many well documented legitimate fossils stored in our natural history museums...of bipedal apes not identical to modern man.
The conundrum of species and kinds has nothing to do with DNA and predates Linnaeus. Compt de Buffon is credited by some with the idea of a biological species. Scientists today struggle in dividing species clearly...because frequently the lines are blurred. All other taxonomic hierarchy (genera, families etc.) Are man made conveniences. So we have mammals that lay eggs, species flocks (biologists are not sure how many species their are), adaptive radiation (island biogeography), species classified as different coming together and interbreeding...oopsies (orioles), species that oncloser observation consist of reproductively isolated populations (cryptic species) and other modern day examples of the phenomena that is occuring right before our eyes. The way genes work often prohibits gradients. Remember good ol Gregor Mendel? The reason who was able to crack the laws of heredity is that dominant and recessive genes produced 2 distinct phenotypes. Point being gradiation in all traits is not going to occur. It might take only a few mutations to remove pigment and eyes and enhance sensory perception in cavefish. One species, that you can go to the pet store and buy, actually evolved recently enough to have a surface living relative that it can hybridize with. But seeing the two you would not say they are the same. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Evolution has nothing to do with Gods existence...I have met atheists who did not buy evolution. Lamarkism(with some recent science coming online ol lamark may actually have a bit of validity...haha) life coming from outer space and the like are all possible...though evolution has evidence and predictive power...which is why it is the favored explanation...not because it explains away God. Same goes for abiogenesis, theoretical physics etc. Im sticking to evolution as it is the topic I am familiar with.
I have met many who embrace evolution and the bible(none literally believed the genesis account or the historical accuracy) Im working off a tablet so will look into more detail on this subject later. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
I will again point to the talkorigins website...they have an exhaustive collection of info on human evolution. I will say the Nebraska man story as told in this thread is a misrepresentation and skewing of the actual happenings. But I will lst you guys read about it.
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But talking about gullibility, it's pretty clear that Christian's can be very gullible ... maybe, considering how easy it is for charlatans to fleece Christian's, and the ability for Christian's to so easily buy into superstitions, they might just be the most gullible. How many, for just one example, bought into James Ussher and his young earth, even today? But when pondering who to trust, if anybody, my least trust in this science v. Bible argument is in those that hold to the conviction that the Bible is the very Word of God. They're defending God, so anything goes, and everything but the Bible to them is wrong, wrong, wrong, even if all evidence and facts, prove them wrong. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
So I read all your links. A few notes.
Australopithecus afarensis does not need to be in the direct line of mans descent(indeed, their have since been many Australopithecus species discovered, and other primates yet to be discovered). The fact of the matter is that their were upright walking apes in existence way before people imagined. The Nebraska/java etc. men are explained on Wikipedia as well as well as the talkorigins website. It is obvious(from reading original sources and the way science works) that creationists are gleefully digging up and misrepresenting what happened. A fraud would be knowing the facts and ignoring them. In this case a hypothesis (possible anthropoid primate tooth? Hmm maybe) were bandied about. Compare the Wikipedia narrative to your brief summary here. I should steal a snippet from talkorigins that science proceeds by correcting error.....so this is of no consequence to the theory. Since we have yet to discover any evidence of anthropoid primates in the Americas (except ourselves when we crossed the Land Bridge and settled here way before Biblical records indicate man should have) then that adds clarity. This is why peer review is important(which is lacking in creationist literature). |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Check this out...seems to sum up the last segments of this thread very well :)
http://humanorigins.si.edu/about/bsi...tionism-primer "However, advocates for ID have not been able to show that their claims are genuinely scientific. While the scientific community welcomes new theoretical proposals, these must lead to active research programs that deepen our understanding of nature and that can find confirmation in either laboratory or field observations. Thus far, ID advocates have been unable to do either." and "Although science does not provide proofs, it does provide explanations. Science depends on deliberate, explicit and formal testing (in the natural world) of explanations for the way the world is, for the processes that led to its present state, and for its possible future." Explanatory power is key. If this is lacking, then you have reason to be skeptical. So far, no other theories...certainly no the supposings of the intelligent design crowd have any predictive or explanatory power. That is why evolution is the grand unifying theory in biology |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Check out this recent find, of a new homo genus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_of_Humanity Video: http://video.pbs.org/video/2365559270/ |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
And ... Btw ... I have a long standing policy to read posts but not get bogged down with endless links. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
I have kept links to a minimum here. But they are necessary because
1. I don't want to write anything inaccurate here. So while many of these posts are written on the fly I do go back and try to find primary/secondary sources to insure my reclections are straight. This way you guys know I am not making things up. 2. Their is a lot to learn about evolution-so it is only fair I provide resources for that. 3. I have in fact opened and at least reviewed all the links posted in this thread. That does not mean I have to agree with what they say and I will often fact check sources against each other if possible. That is just being a good consumer of information. Just today I found and read a Christian pamphlet that argued against evolution as part of their good news of the gospel. They quoted Darwin out of context in a deceitful manner(can provide quote and explanation if you are interested). The people who wrote that text simply cannot plead ignorant(well...maybe willfully ignorant). |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
What I said was that you must believe in evolution if you don't believe in God. But you don't have to disbelieve evolution to believe in God. In other words, atheists have strong interest in proving evolution, because the more viable it is the more viable their atheism is, or so they reason. But disproving evolution is not necessary for Christianity to be true. So Christianity does not hinge on atheism being false. In other words, the atheist's "life depends"on evolution being true more than the Christian's does on it's being false. Thus atheists are probably willing to, let us say, cut more corners with the truth to make sure evolution is accepted. This is explains a lot of the history of evolution "science" we've been unfortunate enough to have to witness. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The problem with science as the ultimate explanatory method is that science feels compelled to try to explain things it cannot, such as explaining why the universe is here. It continues to arrogantly cheerlead it's appropriateness for tasks that are beyond it, while scoffing at other methods, like faith. Science is a great tool. But it's not the ultimate answer. If you want to believe it is then I guarantee you the next step is making science up, like evolutionists do. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
And you can disbelieve in a spherical earth all you want, and claim and pontificate about a flat earth, but that won't make it so. It's the same with natural selection. Denying it doesn't make it untrue. You're just being stubborn, and hanging on to a flat earth. But I guess that's okay. Like Jefferson stated: It neither breaks my leg or picks my pocket. So it doesn't hurt anybody if you look silly. I do it all the time, which is prolly why I like you. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Awareness: Unfortunately many people today think evolution is a topic of great controversy. So creationists do much more egregious things than look silly (such as trying to get Intelligent Design into curriculum and therefore violating separation of church and state-though they claim ID is legitimate science).
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Evolution is no more "legitimate science" than Intelligent Design. Both are interpretations of events. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
#1 God didn't need it. #2 It's crappy science. Why any one who didn't have a gun to their head would believe in evolution is beyond me. Why believe it? I don't get it. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The fact that you say it is not controversial shows how much it is a religion to you. Recall there is not one, not one, incontrovertible piece of evidence that shows that one species evolved into another. Not one. There is not even any really reliable evidence. It's all speculation. Yet, evolution zealots claim it is not controversial. That's like Catholic zealots claiming transubstantiation is non-controversial. The fact is evolution is highly suspect. It's clearly more a matter of faith that fact, which makes it a religion. The cult of evolution is a church, perhaps the state should be separated from it. Intelligent design is at the very least a legitimate field of study. It's a science to the extent it's about studying evidence. Further, that there might be a creator is an IDEA that is central to our existence. So to act like students need to be protected from this IDEA is plain evidence of fear of the idea itself. Evolutionists are afraid. There are afraid of what will happen if students learn all the facts about what universe tells us. This is why they don't want ID studied in school. Separation of church and state is simply a lame excuse in this case. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
And where is a church of evolution? I'd like to attend. Do they have a Bible? I'd like to worship it ... like Christians worship theirs. And do their priests wear funny robes and hats? Do they have a high priest, and tabernacle? |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Here are some fields of study that supposedly support evolution:
Comparative Anatomy: Similar animals have similar anatomies. This shows they evolved from a common ancestor, right? Not necessarily. This is simply speculation, not something proven. They could have simply been created this way. Similar houses have similar structures. This doesn't mean they are related, just that they probably originated from the same idea. Embryology and Development: Basically says that because embryos of different species develop similarly and look similar in development that they are therefore related. Again this really proves nothing. Fossil Records: Extinct types of animals show evidence of similarity to modern species as well as changes, such as ancient whales who had small legs. This does support the theory of micro evolution, changes within species. But it does not necessarily support macro evolution, change from one species to another. There is no fossil evidence for macro evolution. There is certainly no fossil evidence for macro evolution of ape to man. DNA Similarities. Again, DNA similarities simply show the same basic building blocks were used for different species. Naturally, obviously similar species would have more similar DNA. But like Anatomy and Development, assuming that similar DNA shows a related ancestry is just that, an assumption. There are more but you get the idea. Again and again the "evidence" for evolution is circumstantial. That is, the evidence shows evolution only if you assume evolution is necessary for the evidence to exist. If you assume that some natural mechanism must be responsible for the variety of life on Earth then evolution seems inviting. But one must always keep in mind the similarities in species and overall structure and physiology do not necessarily show relatedness. In fact, it suggests just as much that everything sprang from the same Mind. And given that the fossil record has shown no definitive examples of transitional species, certainly not the number that should be available, and especially given that there are no transitional species alive today, when there should be many, this should give anyone pause who suggests macro evolution is a settled matter. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Why is that fortunate? What is the danger? And please don't invoke the slippery slope argument. I'd like to know what is wrong with students being exposed to the idea that the natural development of life anywhere in the universe, let alone on Earth, is a phenomenon so unlikely as to effectively be impossible. That's what the science tells us. Why can't we teach that science? Why shouldn't students know that? |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Their church is academia, with its books and "professors." They are the real "fundamentalists" shutting down all diverse thoughts. We do need a separation of "church" and state from The First Church of Evolution. The worshipers are our youth, the mush-brain children of hard-working Americans. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Igzy: it is a sad state of affairs that I must "debate" evolution. I like to look at it as providing resources.
First(again) we have observed speciation. I have provided numerous examples...and explanations to you and j4me as to why no real line can be drawn between micro and macro evolution. Comparative anatomy: shows that evolution works with what it has...modifying it. So birds have wings made with feathers, bats with webbing, insects from flaps on the exoskeleton. Bats might benefit from feathers, but they probably wont evolve them. Penguins could have been given fur and blubber, or scales or something novel. Instead they have feathers...similar enough to scales to confuse early explorers but feathers nonetheless. Vestigial structures evolved in the past but now have no real function. Why give cave animals relict eyes? Nubby kiwi wings? Little nubby snake feet? Embryology: Dolphins develop front and back legs before reabsorbing the rear ones. Why? Fossil records: so you are suggesting ancient and modern whales were the same species? Huh? It is evolution all right. If the loss of a whole functioning pair of appendages among other things is easy for you to understand as occuring through evolution...then the minor differences between humans and chimps should be easy to accept as very plausible. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
What a marvelous and wise Creator we have, who designed all fauna. Medicine now has rats, pigs, and monkeys to operate on instead of me. :thumbup: |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But this is error of the evolutionist. He see micro evolution and extrapolates this whole theory of common ancestry from it based on little more than circumstantial evidence and wishful thinking. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Igzy: Chromosomes are a big change but legs arent? Modern cetaceans differ from ancient ones in brain structure and capacity(much more material dedicated to auditory functions), changes in dentition, the modification of hair into baleen in baleen whales, nostril placement(now a blowhole and in toothed whales a single opening), flukes, drastically shortened neck, fusing of limb bones, modifications to the ear, flexibility of vertebrae. Oh yes, their areintermediates for all these traits (please correct with evidence if wrong)
Chromosomal speciation happens all the time. In plants, offspring with 2x the number of chromosomes as the parents occur. We have also observed reduced fertility between strains of flies after only a few generations in the lab. On common descent and comparative anatomy |
Re: Bible Versus Science
If a trait were to appear fully developed in a lineage distant from the other we would be suspicious. I bet sloths could benefit from photosynthetic leaves, hanging in the trees all day. This doesnt happen.
In design, those limitations do not exist. We invent solar panels, and then put nearly identical ones on houses, boats, and even planes. All these "lineages" lacked this before. Then we have convergent evolution. Eyes. Eyes on vertebrates, and eyes on molluscs like octopus and squid that look very similar. In both lineages they evolved from simple light receptors...but structural similarities are superficial.octopus eyes for one dont have a blind spot that vertebrate eyes have due to how they are innervated(in fellow vertebrates the optic nerve plugs into the back of the eye...creating a blind spot) If an octopus eye were to appear in a vertebrate(andonecould argue this is a better design)...that would be trouble for evolution... |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Are you kidding me? Talk about a leap of faith! Where are the fossils with the blowhole 1/4 of the way? 1/3? 2/3? 3/4? 7/8? Here's the part you don't seem to get. If there are intermediate species then probability tells us that the vast majority of the fossils we find should be intermediate species. They aren't. The minuscule number we find that could be put forth as intermediate are the extreme exceptions. Also, where are the living intermediates now? If evolution is true MOST existing species should be intermediates. They aren't. I'm sorry. Evolution doesn't pass the common sense test. Not to mention the smell test. It just doesn't. ITW if you'd admit evolution is an act of faith for you I'd have more respect. But acting like it's given... that's just not honest. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Also, Darwin himself admits a legitimate case of irreducible complexity would disprove evolution.
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Igzy: as a youth, I bred swordtails. My fish were all either red or green standard finned fish. No brown intermediates needed.
One season a lyretail sword appeared in the tank. Look this up if you want...it is radically different from the standard finned look. No intermediates! Gregor mendel was able to deduce the way genes work because many genes have only 2 expressions. Dominant and recessive. Plants are either tall or short, wrinkly or smooth seeded, etc. Etc.) Today. I grow airplants. Botanists bicker back and forth about whether two forms are different species or just variations. One species I am familiar with has different forms that flower at different times of year. So they are never going to crossbreed. Otherwise quite similar but likely a single genetic change (long day vs short day bloom stimulus) andnow they fit the biological species concept Orchids are similar. Everything is an intermediate because it is currently evolving. This is how many traits work. Some may have 1 intermediate form(red white and pink flowers). And yes, some things like skin color in humans or height have many genes involved so we are all slightly different. So, as we observe today, you cannot expect fine gradiation of every trait |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Sorry nope....Darwin talked about the eye. Modern findings(in genetics, phylogeny, and comparative anatomy) confirm intermediates for the eye. Eyespots consisting of just photoreceptors. Simple lenses (lizards have what is called a pineal eye on top of their heads), and so forth. Keep in mind evolution does not work in a goal oriented fashion...a stepwise progression of eye complexity is an oversimplification of what actually happens...for many organisms simple eyes are adequate..
In a nutshell molecular motors are made of components used in other cells for different functions. So yes, an unfinished mousetrap wont catch a mouse...but it could make an excellent catapult. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
How can I explain this so that it will make an impression on you and so that you will actually respond to it? I'll try once again and see if I can get through. Please try to actually have an open mind.
According to evolutionary theory, millions of years ago there were only microscopic organisms. Some of these mutated, which lead to higher organisms. In time some of these higher organisms mutated, and so forth, over time leading to man. Now, some of the lower organisms did not mutate, which is why we still see most of them today. But, even so, going forward, some percentage of samples of each lower organism should continue to mutate at basically the same percentage as before. This should also be true of each higher organism. This means that each existing species should be producing candidates for evolution continuously, like a factory producing products. Single cell life, microscopic organisms, invertebrates, insects, arachnids, fish, crustaceans, amphibians, reptiles, birds, marsupials, mammals, apes, man, every single species should be producing mutations and candidates for evolution every single generation. And of these the percentages of those who go on to become new species should be roughly the same over time. This plainly means that if macro evolution is true then there should be an obvious utter living continuum of gradience between species all around us. They should be everywhere. There should be thousands and thousands, even millions, of living intermediates between amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, and between apes and man. Apes should be producing new candidates to evolve into man every year, like a car company coming out with new models. Likewise for every species. Some of these candidates should catch on. New versions of "early reptile," "early bird," "early man," etc, should be being reproduced every generation, over and over and over again. What, you think evolution "knows" that man already exists so it doesn't bother to try to produce him again and again and again? Now, how would that be? We should see them all around us. But they don't exist. If evolution is true they should. This is the fact evolutionists cannot explain. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Irreducible complexity says you can't get from there to here. Until you produce the intermediates you just have a theory. Sorry, nope. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
You cannot expect every living thing that ever lived on earth to be fossilized, uplifted to rocks close to the surface, and found by prospecting paleontologists. If we by some fortune were to have this you would still not see an infinite gradient that you want.
But who would have guessed we would find. Archaeopteryx(2 yrs after darwin published origins) The whale fossil series Tiktaalik roseae Therapsids like Dicynodont Etc. Etc. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Scaleless snakes exist. Does this mean you have snakes with all the possible intermediate number of scales? Nope.
You can look at intermediate forms of the eye if you want. Nature does not provide endless intermediates. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
See, evolutionary theory would have us believe that, millions of years ago, some mutation randomly happened to an ape, or some apes, that produced the first "pre-man" or "pre-men." Then thousands or millions of mutations just happendd to occur on that line to produce modern man, to push him right up the ladder, making him very different from apes. Zowie!
But, evolutionary theory would seem to tell us, this only happened once. Man was set on his separate way from ape, and all the thousands mutations he needed to get to where he is were also kind enough to occur. But no more mutations ever happened down the ages to start the process again from apes. Apes existed 10 millions of years ago, 5 million years ago, 1 million years ago, and all time frames in between. So why did man suddenly spring out of apes only once? Why isn't he continuing to spring out? If mutations are random then probability theory says that although you cannot predict one you can more or less predict how many will happen in a given period. Thus if man began to be produced from apes at one time, then he, or something else, should have begun to be produced from apes going forward, and it should have happened many times. But we don't see it. All we see is man in his current state. One single lonely advancement (of course with the thousands or millions of more mutations in his line to get him to man. Zowie!). But no other advances from apes have ever been begun. Not one single mutation ever started another line from ape to produce a higher species. (Cue "One moment! One single shining momennnnt!!") Amazing! Further, no other advances from any other animal have ever been begun. Why not? |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
What I said was new candidates for evolution should be being produced all the time and this should have been happening for millions of years. This implies we should be seeing all kinds of in-between species right now. We don't. "Nature does not provide endless intermediates." No, it doesn't. That's my point. But evolutionary fundamentals, i.e. random mutations over millions of years, say that it should. That's one reason evolution is bunk. What its stated principles plainly should produce aren't being produced. Live by the random mutation, die by it. Sorry ITW. You've been checkmated. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Okay, let me explain another way. Fifty million years ago (or whenever this nonsense was supposed to have occurred) some mutation happened in some ape somewhere which eventually led to man.
Now, why didn't a similar mutation ever happen again? Why did it only happen once? Just what was the astounding good fortune that led this particular special mutation and ensuing events to lead to man? Surely, probability theory tells us that such mutations, if they indeed happen, must happen with predictable regularity. But only this single, solitary one led to man or some other higher species. Why not another mutation, 5, 10 or 25 million years later, starting the process again? Why not 1 million years ago. Why not 500,000 years ago as well? Or 100,000 years ago, too? Why only once? The idea that one fortuitous mutation would start the process which would eventually lead to man and that this would never happen again is so highly unlikely that it requires a Divine Intelligence to make it happen this way. In other words, ironically, evolution necessitates God for it to have occurred as described. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Contrarily...it seems evident you do not understand the difference between lack of intermediates/gradients for a single trait, vs intermediates/gradients among species. Perhaps i was unclear and if so my apologies.
The towards man and towards ape is a false dichotomy. I have already mentioned observed speciation events. Again, as with the whale fossils, we happen to have intermediates for our own lineage. I can see you reaching for something(that one trait...like debunked need for additional blowhoke positions that one mutation that started it all) to divide all the fossils according to whether they are modern man or ape. Sorry. The fossils contain various combinations of traits. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Their are many factors that determine whether a mutation will be selected for. Mutations of all sorts happen all the time.
For example...yoir ability to digest milk as an adult was a mutation. This mutation had to have been occuring at very low rates in the human population...and would havebeen undetectable until humans began milking the auroch (which evolved into a new species...the domestic cow) suddenly being able to digest milk as an adult was huge survival advantage and so it spread due to natural selection. DNA evidence suggests this happened several times (that is, all humans who produce lactase as adults did not inherit the trait from 1 person/mutation incident) |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
So ... If my brother is lactose intolerant, and I am not, which of us has evolved into a higher life form? |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
And with over 7 billion population on the earth, and ever climbing, I doubt extinction is on the horizon. Extinction is possible if Christian apocalypsists have their way. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Please answer the question. Why did an advanced species proceed from apes only once? What hasn't it happened again? Why don't we see various incidences of advancements from apes in various stages of evolutionary development living right now? Further, why don't we see these examples in other species? Why don't we see many half-reptile-half-bird, half-reptile-half-mammal, half-ape-half-man. There are no living transitional species. If evolutionary theory is true there should be thousands of living examples like this. There are none. I've made this point several times and all you've done is dodge it. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
For the benefit of those still can't understand the point, here is a helpful educational video:
Animals Discuss Evolution, Part 1. https://goanimate.com/videos/0N8nTtrCgqSg |
Re: Bible Versus Science
I'm surprised you evolution deniers haven't brought up the Cambrian Explosion. Maybe because it disproves a young earth, as it happened some 540 million years ago.
Maybe someone has recently explained it. But from what I've seen on videos and in writing, it has stumped all the evolutionists, including Darwin. It's like some deity intervened and said "Let there be" and poof, most of the major animal phyla appeared, as has been indicated by the fossil record. It lasted for about 20 million years, (what's time to God -- a billion here and a billion there and sooner or later it adds up.) Anyway, Wiki has quite a bit on it. And it has many footnotes and references if'n ye may want to dig deeper. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
There you have it folks. Completely logical progression of thought! :p |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Also, we have a member out here that actually tried to blow up the temple mount, so the temple could be rebuilt and Armageddon could start. Israel has caught so many Christians trying to blow up the mount that they term it a mental illness, and call it The Jerusalem Syndrome. And that, way more than gay marriage, has more potential to extinct us. But then, maybe God can finally get it right this time. Tho His track record so far doesn't speak well for it. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Their are various reasons as to why a speciation event might only happen once. -Selection. Again, the adult lactase mutation has likely occurred occasionally in other mammals. But it does not provide a benefit. So it won't be selected for. The environment 5 million years ago for whatever reason made certain traits(bipedalism notably) advantageous. Why? We can't be sure. But those selective conditions likely do not exist today. -Niche occupation. Selection pressure can be divided into three categories -Directional selection. Rough skin newts evolving to be more and more toxic. Garter snakes evolving to be more and more tolerant over time.(these two animals are locked in what I called an evolutionary arms race, but that is for another time). This will push the bell curve of any single trait(say, toxicity, or tolerance) towards one end of the spectrum over time....until it becomes disadvantageous to continue. Then we enter. Stabilizing selection: In this case, the average expression of a trait(that is, the middle of the bell curve of population variability) has the highest survival rate. Over time, variance will lessen. Human birth weight is a good example. Babies of average weight have higher survival than heavier or lighter babies. -Bimodal selection: Is where the extreme forms of a single trait are selected for. For example, in Darwin's finches it was more advantageous to either have a very robust beak, or a very gracile beak. The middle of the road birds were jack of all trades, master of none. This will drive a wedge into the middle of the bell curve and form two separate ones. It will also encourage those in either bell curve to prefer those sharing the same(in the case of Darwin's finches) beak size. Ok, now that we have this covered... Islands are strange places. The worlds largest gecko is sort of a gecko monkey, climbing trees and eating fruit at a reptilian pace(fortunately, it lives on an island group where the only mammals were bats that flew there). On the Galapagos...a finch evolved behavior similar to a woodpecker. In Hawaii, a bird similar to the modern rosefinch evolved into a bunch of different forms, including something like the mainland hummingbird(but it can't hover), The New Zealand weta fills a similar niche as a small mammal, but is basically an oversize cricket. Same for the NZ kiwi, a tubby flightless bird, and the kakapo, a tubby flightless parrot. If you brought the woodpecker finch to the mainland(or brought, as we did, small mammals to New Zealand)...these island forms lose quickly. The only reason they evolved in that particular direction of because it was beneficial to do so and that niche was unfilled. If their is already a superior competitor holding that niche, their is no point to evolve to try to compete against them. So perhaps once a line of bipedal apes became established, that niche was closed to other apes. The bipedal apes did diversify to occupy all sorts of new niches since they could spend more time on the ground. A few developed huge grinding teeth to chew tough tubers and vegetation, for example. And a few, it seems, became scavengers, and developed tools to process meat as well. And so it continued. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
----------------------------------Different Topic--------------------------------
Transitional species/Types As I have tried to explain repeatedly in this thread(and it seems you and J4me either can't ignore or can't understand), stable species are a human concept. All species are transitional! We slice with the knives of Linnaean binomial nomenclature through the sands of variation arguing vehemently if species should be split or lumped(individual taxonomists tend to be either lumpers are splitters, and so fight tooth and nail all the time). However, species are the only classification level in the KingdonPhylumClassOrderFamilyGenusSpecies that exist in reality(that is, the concept of species has a meaning in the natural world, but all the other levels of hierarchy are made to help man organize them at a higher level). Their is actually a movement in place called cladistics that wants to do away with the kingdom system and replace it with a simple branching tree. This would more accurately portray evolutionary history...but would be maddening to work with-so it is unlikely to completely take over. So lets go through some animals that have been pigeonholed into groups that are definite head scratchers. Peripatus: Is a wonderfully bizarre animal that shares some traits with arthropods and some traits with other groups like water bears Hagfish: were once lumped in with the rest of fish, but recent genetic research corroborates physiologists assertions that these are not really fish. In old texts they are referred to as jawless fish alongside lampreys. The problem is that hagfish physiology is like that of a non-vertebrate marine animals...it is isosmotic to seawater. They are more similar to sea squirts and the like than fish....but share some very fishlike characteristics. They are still placed in phylum chordate(along with even more unfishlike tunicates) and are probably the most basal extanct creatures in subphylum vertebrata. Lungfish: sure, other fish can breathe air...and I guess the lobe fins on Neoceratodus are not a huge deal. The big ringer for these is that larval lungfish are nearly indistinguishable from larval amphibians. They have 3 pairs of external, frilly gills. Half reptile half mammal: The therapsids I mentioned fit this nicely, though they are all extinct. But how about an egg laying mammal that nurses its young through mere slits on its underside?(monotremes) How about a mammal that is only marginally warm blooded and who's body temperature flunctuates (tenrec). half reptile half bird: Take a look at bird feet. What do you see. Scales. Oh boy... While a few paleontologists argue otherwise as part of BAND(Birds Are Not Dinosaurs)...the vast majority have come to see birds as direct descendants of the theropod dinosaurs. BAND btw, believes birds were descended from earlier archosaur lineage. Future fossils will elucidate this further-I am excited to see what happens. It is clear to all that the groups are related. It is cool to see all the new color paintings of feathered dinosaurs. We even know what color patterns one had!(it looks similar to a modern day woodpecker with a red crest, and black and white banding on the wings). Whenever I observe a cassowary I can't help but think about those paintings are realize they are really not that foreign. Half ape half man: All the other species/types went extinct recently, a few(Neanderthals and Denosivans) seem to have been absorbed by modern man as he radiated out of Africa. Homo actually left Africa several times through its evolutionary history. Modern man actually came very close to becoming extinct before re-radiating. As a species we have much lower variability than average(not as bad as cheetahs though! Those critters are screwed unless they hang out long enough for enough mutation to occur to re-establish genetic diversity) The more that we study chimps and other primates(and even other animals), the more we find aspects of our biology we thought unique to ourselves. Culture and the passing down of traditions, tool use, etc. were once considered traits solely of Homo sapiens sapiens. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
You are a living encyclopedia of evolutionary theory. The problem is I don't want to talk to an encyclopedia. I want to talk to a person who acknowledges, understands and respects my objections to the ideas and is able respond to them in kind. You don't seem to understand or want to understand my objections. As far as I'm concerned any supposed living transitional evidence we see in the world today is several orders of magnitude less that what we should be seeing if macro evolution driven by random mutation is true. What we mostly seen is huge gaps, not transition. That's a fact. Again, I don't need to fight evolution to fight for my faith. The reason I do is because it strikes me as really, really bad science. If I thought evolution made sense I might believe it. My faith doesn't demand that I don't. The reason I don't believe it is that based on the evidence it sounds like a fairy tale. I think people believe in evolution for two reasons, (1) they need a natural explanation for the variety of life on earth, and/or (2) they don't want to look stupid in the world's eyes. Myself, I could care less about either. But the pressure to seem "with it" and "sophisticated" in the world's eyes is overwhelming for most people. It's vanity thing. And unfortunately, most people would rather be stupid than look stupid. That aside, getting back to the subject of this thread. I do not believe the Bible is versus Science. That's an unfair rap. I feel the Bible meshes well with Science. That is true science, the observation and measure of nature, verified through experimentation. Not evolution which is a idea contrived to fill an emotional need for natural explanations and which can neither be tested nor verified, and which the existing natural world overwhelmingly denies. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
"Christianity has found, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, the Christianity is nothing." -- Atheist G. Richard BozarthNow, Harold, this is the mind of an atheist. He sees evolution as an idea whose destiny is to destroy Christianity. Please don't ever tell me that evolution is not valued as a discrediting of Christ. You might want to believe that. It's your business. You have your own reasons for living in foolishness. But don't extrapolate your "innocence" to others. For many, evolution is a weapon of mass destruction to destroy the Christian faith. "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." -- Richard DawkinsDawkins' largeness at the end is a fake. He surely thinks that wickedness is a motivation for not believing in evolution, or he wouldn't have said it. Can you believe his self-assuredness and arrogance? Why is Dawkins so sure evolution is true? It's not because the science is unquestionable, because it is far from that. It's because he is "sure" God doesn't exist. Said more accurately, he has bet his life and soul that God doesn't exist and his being wrong is not a tolerable option to him. Make no mistake, this is war for these guys. They are committed to destroying Christian faith because they cannot tolerate even the faintest thought it is true. Because if it is that means they are going to hell. Here is another quote from Bozarth. "Atheism is science’s natural ally. Atheism is the philosophy, both moral and ethical, most perfectly suited for a scientific civilization. If we work for the American Atheists today, Atheism will be ready to fill the void of Christianity’s demise when science and evolution triumph. Without a doubt humans and civilization are in sore need of the intellectual cleanness and mental health of atheism."Now, I don't believe that Christianity or the Bible is anti-science at all. But here is a person who clearly wants to employ "science" to destroy Christianity. So when it seems Christians are fighting science, they are actually fighting the abuse of science by the hands of fanatics like Bozarth. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Igzy: I understand your objection..its one that i wondered about for a bit. But it is invalid. I explained why a gradient in all traits is simply not how genes work. According to your need for continuous gradients even two animals from the same litter can leave "unacceptable gaps". You don't need rats in every shade of gray to get from a black one to a white one.
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Science can be abused, as can religion. Science tells us what is, and provides explanatory and predictive power. Science cannot directly make moral judgements etc.
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Igzy: though you seem to wish to characterize it otherwise...I accept evolution as valid because it makes sense. Their is nothing wrong with needing a natural explanation...because a natural explanation allows you to explain and predict rather than just saying goddunit.
As a youth I observed a lot of the natural world did not mesh with the oversimplified version I was fed (complete w inaccuracies and a few flat out lies). The natural world is just to darn fascinating to observe...inconvenient facts and all so I continued...but I'm sure many get the supposed complete story and that is that. This got me very interested in creationist and intelligent designt literature which I have read intensively...it was comforting at first to be able to ridicule scientists. A lot of it sounded scientific and objective. That is until holes, misconceptions, half truths and misinterpretations were revealed. I still read some creationist literature but it tends to be the same arguments trotted out again. So at this point it is more practice at evaluating evidence than any delusion of disproving evolution |
Re: Bible Versus Science
http://www.indiana.edu/~oso/evolution/teaching/te2a.htm
Wow...so I just Google "lack of transitional forms" and whammy this pops up (sadly after an Institute of creation research article that I also read...but given my search criteria I guess that is excusable). I independently came up with this very explanation...though perhaps my prose is less clear...I hope this makes more sense This link handily addresses and debunks your statement. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
And I think I see your point. In a nutshell, if you will permit: If evolution is true then it not only negates a 6000 yr old earth, but also the Biblical creation account (written somewhere 3200 yrs from the 6000 yr old creation). And if the Genesis account is fiction then, there was no fall, and therefore no original sin. And if no original sin then the death of Jesus has no meaning. And finally, Christianity is destroyed. Gosh bro Igzy, since you're so dug in I doubt this will help but still I must. I defer to the Jesuit Priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who coined the notion of the World Wide Web long before Al Gore invented it (;)), with his Noosphere, and was censored by the Church for his views on evolution. The church said he was negating original sin. But he believed that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, and is drawing all men, by evolution of consciousness to the Omega Point. Now Chargin is not likely to change your mind, but I think you will find him in the least very intriguing and interesting. I've read both of his published books, but you can start with Wiki, and if interested go from there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre...ard_de_Chardin |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The point I was making with those quotes by atheists was that for some atheists evolution promises to be a weapon for attempting to destroy Christianity. I think Bozarth is wrong. I do not think that showing evolution true would destroy Christianity at all. Bozarth, like all atheists, demonstrates that almost creepily shallow and misled understanding of the Christian faith. They always sound like people trying to describe a song they've never really heard. Their utter ignorance is really chilling. But, again, my faith is in no way threatened by evolution. If macro evolution made sense to me, I might believe it. But it doesn't. It doesn't come close to passing the stink test. I hope I've made myself clear. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Igzy: did you read the link? You want transitional forms. You want them to morph fluidly like that color gradient you posted. Am I wrong? If so, I challenge you to write a quick explanation that provides falsifiability (as I have provided numerous ways to disprove evolution). This means specific criteria rather than hand waving evidence away.
For example you mentioned you need fossils showing the whale nostril gradually moving to its present position. I provided genetic evidence as to why this is not necessary nor probable. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
As for science supporting the Bible...
Was the sun temporarily put away for the beginning of genesis? All evidence points towards it being older than earth. Ignoring evolution totally at the moment...bible accounts claim that animals only began to kill after the garden of eden. Not supported by the evidence. Imagine a poor leiopleurodon trying to eat seaweed. grass being the first form of plant life. Grasses most definitely appeared long after fish. classification of bats as birds and insects as 4 legged in leviticus. Longevity of early man into the hundreds of years...not supported by evidence. Lilies in the field and birds don't abide peacefully and survive. They sure have no guarantee of daily bread. Bees and honey from a carcass? Jacobs cow breeding experiment in Genesis is just weird. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Also...what to make of hoaxes involving religious artifacts? So just because the Shroud of Turin is faked doesn't make it evidence for Jesus' s nonexistence...only that the Shroud is fake. The same goes for the (much rarer...I can think of two prominent hoax fossils...One that was done by a vendor of which ended up being a cool discovery anyway once put together correctly) fossil hoaxes.
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
http://www.godofevolution.com/the-to...lution-at-all/
I hate these top 10 lists...I'm not even sure I like the name of the website....but I don't see any glaring inaccuracies. A Christian sums up this thread. I defer to awareness for thoughts on no. 10 A correction on my own content. I have read that the lyre tail gene is dominant in swordtails....as a youth we had at least 1 put into the tank(unless it arose by spontaneous mutation...unlikely so I bet on unclear memory of events). |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The Lord said we need to take the "axe to the root," and the "root" of evolution is not science, but atheism. Why is it that their proponents can make this very clear, but if I say it, then I must be from the stone ages. The Bible is neither for nor against science, the Bible is truth, it is the historical record of God's dealings with mankind. Evolution is a distorted view of life on earth, in the name of science, to deceive mankind. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
But then, not everyone is like me, I guess. From diapers I've always wanted to know how things work. And that's all evolution is to me; a puzzle of how life works. Every exterminator I've talked to knows bugs adapt immunities to their poisons. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Evolution is no different than Lee's "economy of God" -- a colored lens through which every thing is viewed. Lee saw the "economy of God" every where he looked in the Bible, just like an evolutionist who sees evolution every where he looks in creation. You say that you are in the Bible every day. What do you do with John 1.3? |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
By the way. I just watched "Evolution vs. God" on Youtube. It's highly evangelical ... and anti-evolution & science. It even praises the Creation Museum here in Kentucky. Y'all creationists will just love it. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Adaptation to poison is evolution.
Appeals to "gods marvelous design" explains nothing about the phenomena. By understanding the theory of evolution...we can understand how exactly insects adapt to poison (evolve) |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Two to four thousand years ago they lived in a world we can't understand or even imagine today. Like it or not, because of literacy and science we generally don't believe in mythologies and superstitions -- magical thinking -- like they did back then. Back then they wouldn't be surprised by talking snakes, and breading cows with magic sticks, or that gods could come down from heaven and mate with young women, or that God could stop the sun in it's "orbit" around the earth, or that God would have favorite people and "give" them lands that they would have to kill everyone living on it to receive their "free gift" of land. Oh wait. Some are still living out that ancient mythology. Just look at the middle east. But we no longer believe in a flat earth, or that the sun goes around the earth. Science beat out those mythologies. But sadly, some are still trying to apply their ancient holy writ to today's world, and it's causing all kinds of havoc and killings. But to be honest, we might not be able to blame it all on ancient holy books. Some of it can just be blamed on human nature. Primates haven't yet evolved to the Omega consciousness predict by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Hopefully we'll get there before we extinct the human species with our awful weapons of mass destruction. In that regard we don't need our ancient mythology that God will destroy the world. Unfortunately, I guess, we can do that without God's help. Maybe the real problem with evolution is that it won't save us from that. Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Europeans owe their height to ASIAN nomads and blue eyes to hunter gatherers: Ancient DNA plots centuries of genetic changes that have shaped modern man
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz3sNRC9V3b |
Re: Bible Versus Science
I think that is part of why different religion s are at forever odds with each other.
Each sees itself as the answer, and by being part yiu are somewhat excused from guilt and responsibility at being part of the present world situTion. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
I do really encourage everyone to click the last link I posted. I wish more Christians were like that.
I will even post it again! Their is a chance I would still be Christian had I met this guy at the right time. Denial of reality and the resulting guilt is a good portion of what pushed me away. http://www.godofevolution.com/the-to...lution-at-all/ Awareness: fascinating! The short Asian stereotype does not apply to all the present ethnic groups there today either. Humans still have "ecotypes" such as a population of hunter gatherers in the llanos where the females reach sexual maturity earlier and everyone is smaller. I even read a paper documenting slight outbreeding depression between Caucasian and asians. I recall Africa is home to the tallest and shortest ethnic groups...which makes sense in light of all the other evidence. Especially interesting is the wisdom teeth story. Basically a combination of genetics and environment mean modern humans have mouths too small for all their teeth. Some people...mostly central Asian descent carry a mutation that eliminate s wisdom teeth. In people like the Inuit who have even smaller mouths than normal this is a huge advantage so this gene is more frequent. It may well have come to predominate except now modern dentistry means only minor loss in fitness for having wisdom teeth. While we may all think we are quite different...that is a human centric view...Our species is quite uniform. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
As I've said before, people believe what they want to believe.
Macro evolution is only a necessity for those with a deep need to believe it. It's not necessary for life, certainly not for eternal life. You can be sure that those who strongly believe in evolution have an emotional need to do so, because objective observation leaves way too many questions about it. It does not deserve the credibility it gets. There are too many assumptions made about it. It's historical science not testable science. It's mostly conjecture. Building whole species from a few teeth and bones is shows great imagination, but it isn't science. Believing in macro evolution is an extreme exercise of faith, to say the least. So why do people believe in evolution, or for that matter fight for it? I can think of several reasons: 1) As stated, it's ammo for those with a militant need to dismiss God. As we've seen from several quotes, this is a very real attitude. The evil of this is that it can be used to lead innocent people away from the truth. 2) A need to trust a non-God source of knowledge. Simply put people want to believe they can find Truth independent from God. They want to not need God. SCIENCE is the logical replacement for spiritual wisdom in the world's eyes. 3) It makes people feel smart and sophisticated. Simply put, in the Age of Reason people want to feel they are people of reason. Unfortunately, believing in macro evolution is less reasonable and requires more faith than believing in Christianity. 4) People are afraid of ridicule. The leading technique of the world is to threaten ridicule and ostracization for those who buck the accepted wisdom. Mocking is a highly effective way of bullying the insecure masses into politically-correct thinking, and to make them more "bricks in wall." Most people are chicken and so go along to get along. Since there is no real need to believe or not believe in evolution, they take the path of least resistance. Put simply, most people would rather be stupid than look stupid. Hell is going have a large representation of this type of person, by the way. 5) Brainwashing by the media. The Google Doodle, seen daily by millions and millions, today celebrated the 100th anniversary of the discovery of Lucy, the "amazing" missing link that was later determined to be an ape. Even years after Lucy was exposed as a mistake, the tide of the media just keeps flowing, taking the young skulls full of mush with them. 6) A need to discredit traditional Christianity. These people don't want to so much destroy Christianity, as destroy "fundamentalist" Christianity. They pro-evolutionists on this board fall generally into this category. Making fun of evangelicals is great sport in the world today. Why not join in!!? It continues to amaze me that given all the questions and scandal surrounding the macro evolution circus, people still jump wholesale into believing it. One would at least think they would concede all the questions that still exist. But they run after it like a Catholic defending the pope. Why? What does it do for them? What does it buy them? Evolution can't save your soul. It can't feed your family (unless you are a professional scientist). It can't keep you warm at night. So why? All it can do for you is help get you in with the crowd you want to be in with. When all is said and done that is probably the reason most believe it. After participating in this thread, I believe less in evolution than before, and I don't care about being in with that crowd. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Igzy: that link is just for you.
"People believe what they want to" Speak for yourself. My life would be much more predictable and easy had I bought into all the creationist literature I read. It sounded so good. I couldn't stand for lies however. For your points two and three...I have faced far more ridicule on account of evolution than I have for Christianity. Darwin and Wallace came up with the idea nearly simultaneously on opposite ends of the British Empire. I recall a similar story being told about pray reading...The Blended conclusion being it was divinely inspired. I mused that evolution must then have been divinely inspired. ;) Lucy is no mistake. The only thing misleading I can think of is that we are not sure she is a girl. I have seen the specimen and it is far from "a few bones and teeth" |
Re: Bible Versus Science
So the need to believe in evolution can be summed up this way.
1) Lack of faith. 2) Need for independence from God. 3) Need for independence from traditional Christianity. 4) Need to be accepted by the world. 5) Need to shut down voices that would dissent and bring guilt. Thus, I submit, some or all of these motivations cause most evolutionists to inexplicably swallow the highly suspect theories of macro evolution. I submit that there is an emotional need in evolutionists to believe in an at least theoretically viable alternative to creation, which springs basically from their desire to fire God, or traditional Christianity, or both, and the moral requirements they impose. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
"There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it.... In everybody who is looking for hominids, there is a strong urge to learn more about where the human line started. If you are working back at around three million, as I was, that is very seductive, because you begin to get an idea that that is where Homo did start. You begin straining your eyes to find Homo traits in fossils of that age.... Logical, maybe, but also biased. I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain." (Johanson, Donald C. and Maitland Edey (1981), Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon & Schuster)Later in a 1996 National Geographic Johanson admitted "Lucy has been dethroned." And I never said Lucy was just a few teeth and bones. She was a 40% complete skeleton... of an ape. If engineers bought into cheesy theories the way evolutionists do, we'd have building collapsing all around us. It's pretty clear to me that evolution has replaced the LCM as your article of blind faith. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
If you can only stonewall..is that not a lack of faith?
I am not buying your earlier claim that the only reason you don't accept evolution is that it is bad science. you are convinced it directly attacks your beliefs...you can't claim to be looking at it objectively. Everyone is biased. Some more than others. Part of being an intelligent consumer of information is to be able to note the bias and observe the facts. Lucy ' s being dethroned is very vague. Her species is not thought to be in the direct line to humans(but this is no requirement for a transition fossil) she is also most definitely not the oldest or most complete hominid anymore. I am willing to bet the next few paragraph s of that mined quote would be revealing. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Hey I will quote mine too!
"To say that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selections, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree" Darwin, On the Origin of Species if you think Darwin is admitting the eye could not have evolved I have a couple acres of real estate at "11.35 N and "142.2 W to sell you |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Yes, there is another reason I don't like macro evolution besides that it's bad science. I don't like it because people like you act like we have to believe this boondoggle to be considered smart. It's just one more way the world bullies people into how they want you to think. And one you've apparently given in to. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Lucy is an ape, for sure! No one has claimed otherwise. She just happens to be an ape capable of walking upright among other things... like this ape that can sorta use an iPhone :).
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Igzy: more important than (and crucial to interpreting the fossil record)
Gregor Mendel's laws of heredity lay undiscovered. Far more important than the fossil record was the need to understand just how traits were passed on. At the time it was supposed still that some sort of Lamarkian gradualism was going on...so people were indeed perplexed when we did not find forms gradually morphing into each other. The discoveries that followed in genetics explained that. It would actually go against what we know today if such were discovered. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Again, if macro evolution is really real then the array of living things would be very different today. We would be seeing all kinds of transitional species. Why? I’ll try to explain again. ITW has not even taken this claim on, let alone explained it.
If microscopic life evolved into higher life millions of years ago then some of today’s microscopic life should be evolving into higher life also. Likewise with all current life. Some current fish should be evolving into something between fish and amphibian RIGHT NOW. Some current amphibians should be evolving into something between amphibian and reptile RIGHT NOW. Some current reptiles should be evolving into something between reptile and bird, and reptile and mammal, RIGHT NOW. Some current apes should be evolving into something like man RIGHT NOW. This is not just true for right now. In each age in the past, the species at that time should have been producing new higher forms of themselves. But each species does not just disappear after some samples of it evolve higher. Representatives of each existing species remain, unchanged. So these remaining representatives and their relatively unchanged descendants should continue to produce new candidates for evolution. Thus each species should have been producing new candidates all along the way in each age going back to the beginning of life, over and over again, like factories or farms. This fact means that we should be seeing transitional species all over the place right now, because each age should have produced these same or similar candidates again and again. Thus there should be all kinds of transitional species all over the place, not just the tiny set of token transitionals the evolutionists like to draw attention to. In fact, I would suggest that most species should be plainly transitional. But the extreme opposite is the case. The absence of these seriously calls into question the claims of evolution, that it is driven by random mutation. For one example, it doesn’t make sense that only man would emerge from apes and no other species has. It doesn’t make sense that birds haven’t continued to emerge from reptiles again and again down through the ages, thus providing us today with many living examples of part-reptile-part-bird species. But there are none to speak of. Note I’m not arguing right now that the actual line between each species should be shown (though it should, too). But that each species or something like it should have been reproduced over and over and over again, down through the ages. Some of the amphibians of 100 million years ago should have produced reptiles. But the amphibians of 90 million years ago should have produced reptiles again. Likewise 80 million years ago, 75 million, and so forth. Likewise for each species down through the ages. Thus life on earth should look like a Christmas tree farm for each species and the lines from them. The farm plants new trees many times in a year. Thus each size tree is represented with gradiency. Likewise, many transitional species and in-betweens should be plainly represented now, because each had many opportunities to be reproduced over and over down through the millennia. The vast majority of existing species endure, evolution tells us, because they were robust candidates. So if they were produced once and endured, why not again and again many times? Evolutionists can't explain why not. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
3. That being said...give me a list of traits you would see in a
Creature in between a fish and amphibian...for example. What would tell you it's evolving into an amphibian What would tell you that an amphibian is evolving into a reptile? |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
According to evolution, as some samples of a species evolve some samples of the same species do not. Thus for each species, some samples advance and some do not. This is true at every level and time. So transitionals should exist both because of the repeated re-evolving factor I pointed out earlier, but also because for any given species at any given time only a tiny subset of that species will be involved in evolving to a higher species. Thus you have the ones that advance, but mostly the ones that remain, for each stage of evolution. Granted early on there are only a few representatives of the new state, but they should quickly multiply, as the next step could take hundreds or thousands of years. So this fact, combined with the repeated re-evolving of new species from static samples of existing species which should have occurred, means that the contingent of transitionals should be overwhelming, and probably even should account for the vast majority of the animal population on the earth right now. So, if evolution is true, the current state of the animal population implies that some highly unlikely things must be true: 1) Evolution only happens once for each existing species. It can never happen again, not even for something very similar. Random mutation as the engine of evolution contradicts that, however, and says what goes around should come around again and again. 2) Transitionals suffer extinction very quickly. For example, although the cockroach has endured unchanged for millions of years, its ancestors have long since passed. Why? Likewise the shark. It hasn't changed in millions of years. But pre-sharks, part-sharks, half-sharks have not endured. Maybe because sharks were just that much better? Not likely. But if transitionals have all gone extinct, why were they such good candidates for producing a line which has endured to this day in the first place? Some version of the Ford Mustang endures to this day. Original Mustangs are no longer manufactured, but still are driven today, because they were and are considered great cars. The Edsel, however, quickly went the way of the Dodo bird, and produced no "evolutionary" descendants. And try to find one of them on the road today. Good candidates for starting an evolutionary branch should be good candidates for endurance themselves. Thus transitionals should generally endure and not go extinct. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
I understand your intended point, but it's a disingenuous one because you picked the set that is the most similar from start to finish. Show me the intermediate reptile-birds that exist right now. Show me the existing reptile-mammals. Show me the existing ape-men. What happened to the transitionals? Why did they go extinct? If they were the beginnings of a new evolutionary species then they each should have been quite robust in themselves (See my previous post.) And don't give me some obscure, one-of-a-kind, kinda-sorta-maybe example. As I argued, there should be thousands of existing samples to choose from. They should be like the lilies of the field. If chicken feet is your best example then you've make my point, not yours. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
The question before us is: What happened to the transitionals? Either they never existed (most likely) or they all became extinct (most unlikely).
For each major transition, say between reptile and bird, there must have been thousands of generations of transitionals. Each of these would have been genuine species in and to themselves, with no obligation to evolve further. Some of these, would have continued to evolve. But all could not have. It certainly makes no sense that because one sample of a species began to evolve into a higher species that each sample must. Some samples do not evolve. Thus lower species remain. Most of them do. Submission: Most samples of any given species at any given time do not evolve nor do they give rise to samples that do evolve. That is, most samples of any given species do not change. So this is yet another reason why there should be thousands of living transitionals today. That said, some of these lower species will suffer extinction, and possibly some of the transitionals, too. But it makes no sense that while the unchanged species largely remain, most to all of the transitionals eventually become extinct. Because, as said earlier, if the transitionals were the beginnings of a great new species that was such a powerful "idea" that it fought through all unlikelihood to its eventual existence, then if follows that at least some of the transitionals should have endured, too. But we see very, very few, if any. Take, for example, MAN. Despite the grumblings of misanthropes like Harold, it must be said that if evolution is true then man is evolution's greatest success story. So this means that mans' precursors were on the right track. So then why did all the missing links suffer extinction? Why didn't they endure? Where are the ape-men today, not quite as intelligent as us, but much smarter than the apes, living in the wild and, with the advantages of being both animal and man, ruling over the lower animals there with great efficacy? More advanced man probably killed them off, you might haste to think. But given man's history of slavery, it makes more sense that more advanced man would have enslaved less advanced man. Fed, kept him and bred him, like stock animals, and forced him to do his labor. There is no evidence of this, either. Thus if lower and higher man ever existed alongside each other, it is more likely that higher man would have worked to prevent the extinction of lower man, desiring to keep and use him, as he did horses, cattle, chickens with chicken feet, etc. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Igzy: we are genetically closer to lung fish than trout. The largest/most changes occurred at this juncture. Seeing them as similar is again humanocentric. What we call fish are more different from each other than a group consisting of birds reptiles all lumped together would be
Why do "robust" species go extinct? -the environment changes...they are out competed by species better adapted. Fitness is relative and varies over space and time. Why don't species revolve or evolve the same way again? Mammals and dinosaurs both came into existence around the same time. But dinosaurs were preadapted to fill the niches of big herbivores, carnivores, etc. No very small dinosaurs evolved as these niches were filled by other reptiles, mammals etc. It is sort of like how you would probably pick a basketball player over a mountain biker to compete in a free throw competition....especially if the competition is other basketball players. But if no ball players show up and your mountain biker faces a plumber he has a much better chance. When dinosaurs went extinct...Mammals could then diversify into the jobs dinosaurs left vacant. But sure, what traits would a dinosaur bird intermediate have. How about a reptile mammal. In my next post i will explain why it is unnecessary for their to be many. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Transitional forms tend to get supplanted. And a lineage may struggle along for eons before diversifying. Case in point placental mammals (which as they spread across the globe gradually out competed and replaced most marsupials, monotremes, and other rare groups). By the time placental mammals got their big break they had evolved in a distinctly separate direction from other mammals. Their were very few of them species wise throughout their evolutionary history up to this point.
How is man evolutions greatest success? We are the most numerous single species of large animal likely ever....though this is a blink in geological time. We have survived as a species a very short time...and were nearly wiped out during an ice age. We don't know what exactly killed off all those other hominids. But by that analogy of yours the other great apes(our cousins so to speak) which you have to concede are more human than the rest should be incredibly successful too. Far from it, many are on the verge of extinction, and have been in small numbers and limited distribution. Lemurs (early primates) are extinct except for in Madagascar. On slavery...incredibly speculative...not at all a usual rule. We have killed off a large number of human ethnic groups...The majority of humans today representing a tiny minority of ethnic groups. For every species we domesticate we annihilate thousands of others. It must be looked at as an exception. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
See? There are all these unstated assumptions and principles of evolution belief which must be true for evolution to be true. They include:
1) A species only starts out once from a lower species. Once that line begins, it and nothing like will never be begun again. Thus though ape-men could begin to appear 5 million years ago, they could not begin to appear again 1 million or 500,000 or 100,000 years ago. Birds appeared from reptiles 350 million years ago. But they could not appear again 300, 200, 100, 50, 25, 3, or 1 million years ago. How did the reptiles know the birds had already appeared? Who was controlling all this? 2) Most or all transitional species suffer extinction. Evolution is mindless. Thus an existing species, however evolved, is under no obligation to evolve further. Transitional species don't know they are transitional. But apparently something does, because if you are one, for example, half-bird-half-reptile, then you are toast. Only the species that completely become birds can endure. But this does not explain why the transitionals endured only long enough to produce a whole wonderful new species in the first place! If their descendants were so great, why weren't they? Well, it must be because there is something somewhere saying we can't have any half-reptiles half-bird flying around, or any other transitionals either--because there sure aren't any, although if evolution is true there should be. But apparently Nature killed them all off. It left the original reptiles, and the final birds, but killed ofd everything in between and left the situation, ironically, just like the Bible describes it--"everything after its own kind." Isn't that interesting? Thus there is presumed and unstated purposefulness to evolution that its adherents implicitly have to believe but either don't know they believe or don't admit to. The supposed randomness and mindlessness of evolution demands the current existence of more transitionals than finals or originals. Given the current animal population, the only sensible conclusion is, if macro evolution is real, it has been miraculously directed by God to produce a separation of species that looks more like what is described in Genesis than what evolution would have produced. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
1.) Niche occupation greatly reduces the chances of it happening. Also, because all species are evolving constantly you are unlikely to have the same template to work with 1 million years later.
2.) A lot of these in betweeners exist still. And many of the not so inbetweeners go extinct. Species are constantly evolving, and going extinct. What differs is that sometimes lineages may produce more descendants than other lineages. Again, the supposed seperateness of species is an illusion. The idea that they are in between is again humanocentric-they have been evolving on their own(perhaps less successfully). Had they have done well and diversified and become abundant other groups might be marginalized and defined around them. They branched off at different times but their branches have not diversified-or maybe were once diverse. So the "kinds" idea falls flat on its face. I love looking up weird animals-because every day I learn about some crazy creature that stretches preconceived notions... Calomyscus: The mouse like hamsters. Neither mice, nor hamsters. Appear to have split off from the hamster line early on. The Calabar burrowing boa: Seems like it fits in with the sand boas but unlike any of them it lays eggs. Scientists argue over what to do with this creature. Another species of boa actually lays eggs covered with a thin membrane that hatch in a week. But boas are all supposed to give live birth Mexican burrowing python: Another anomaly. amphisbaenians: I don't know how the heck to describe these grotesque little animals. In birds, many birds have claws on their front wings(err...limbs) a decidedly reptilian trait. And scales on their legs. I realize you already scoffed at chicken feet but if this isn't a reptilian trait what is it? This is most extreme in the hoatzin. Then you have fossil birds such as archaeopteryx that had teeth and long tails as well. Tenrecs: Mammals that regulate body temperature in a reptilian fashion. Their is a difference between a totally random process versus one that has no designer. One can look at a coastline and the hardness of the rocks and predict where a cove may form and where a headland may form. This is not truly random but it is mindless. Same for evolution. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
We are now into the subject of teleological reasoning and evolution...which is a real tough one to explain even for me. We humans do not like randomness and want everything to have a purpose. Natural processes do not quite work that way.
But I will try an analogy. The coastline is far from uniform, or gradual. In some places, it has miles of relatively straight beach. Suddenly rough headlands jut out, and quiet coves sweep in. The appearance of the coast is due to a combination of factors. Wave energy, the hardness of the substrate on the coast, uplifting of new material through plate tectonics. Soft rocks wear down faster than hard rock. The further out a headland juts, however, the more wave energy it tends to get...it will start to get worn down faster. All these factors are in a sense random...but what you do not get are only gradually curving shorelines. Does that make any sense? |
Re: Bible Versus Science
On the topic of wacky animals that we have trouble placing...how about these EDGE species? They are targeted as the most evolutionarily distant groups and so saving them would preserve the most evolutionary history.
http://www.edgeofexistence.org/species/ Here's a pretty wild one! http://www.edgeofexistence.org/mamma...fo.php?id=1397 I suppose you could pass it off as just a squirrel or something. But that would be sadly unobservant and jaded And what the heck is this thing... http://www.edgeofexistence.org/mamma...info.php?id=45 Mole? Not really http://www.edgeofexistence.org/mamma...nfo.php?id=123 One kind of chinchilla, or two? "In the past only a single chinchilla species was recognized, but most taxonomists agree that differences in colour, size and tail length between different populations indicate that there are two species: Chinchilla chinchilla and C. lanigera. Recent molecular research has provided further evidence for this. The range of the two chinchilla species may have overlapped in the past, and some interbreeding may have occurred. Male hybrids from the two species are sterile, but females are fertile and may mate with males from either of the species. There are large numbers of chinchillas in captivity today – they are bred for both the fur trade and the pet trade. These chinchillas are distinct from both species and are likely to be a cross between the two." |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
This is weak response. Similar types of animals co-exist all the time without getting "supplanted." If supplanation was an issue they there would hardly be any lower species at all, because supposedly everything evolved from the same source. A transitional species wouldn't know it's transitional. And the final wouldn't know it's final, and neither would we. You said that yourself. As I said, all kinds of animals co-exist. There are many kinds of wild cats living in America. They don't supplant one another. Why would the latest version of a species supplant the older one? Does the older one just go sterile and give up when it see the new version? It's a big world. Animals can and do co-exist. Despite my analogy, they aren't cars. The new version doesn't obsolete the older one. The older version can reproduce just as well as the newer one. And as close as they are to one another, they should have no problem co-existing. Supplanation is just another rationalization. You still have not accounted for the lack of existing transitionals an any kind of credible way. Just sounds now like you are running for the evolution text and regurgitating what it says. How about thinking about my questions for a change? As for man being the greatest success story, I was talking about his intelligence, not the time he's been here. Either way, it's really a superfluous point. Why take it on? As to slavery, are you saying you think modern man killed off the inferior versions? Do you have any evidence of this or do you just wish it were true? As your point about nature not having the patterns we wish to see, I agree. But it's evolutionists that see patterns that aren't there. You're the ones that wants to impose this order on development that has produced all life, making up reasons the transitionals are extinct and so forth as your. I know patterns are not there, I don't expect them. What I'm saying is that if evolution is true as defined then that demands there should be kind of order that we do not see. There should be thousand or even millions of obvious transitional species. Evolution should be truly spontaneous, happening over and over, reproducing similar species over and over down through time. Thus transitionals should be everywhere. The handful of kinda-sort-maybes you cite don't make up for that lack. There should be many, many more. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
What I'm talking about is, where are the reptiles half-covered with feathers? They should exist. Where are the lizards with half-developed wings and beaks? Where are the snakes with little vestigial or nascent legs? Where are the thousands of variations of fish that can also breath in water and land? There should be reptiles with fur, and mammals with scales. And there should be many different varieties of ape-men. And on and on and on. I'm talking about major transitional species that should still exist because they either ceased to evolve or began to evolve later than the groups before them. None of these exist. You haven't addressed my major point at all. You are just talking around it. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
This is weak response. Similar types of animals co-exist all the time without getting "supplanted." If supplanation was an issue they there would hardly be any lower species at all, because supposedly everything evolved from the same source.
-Again lets avoid the use of higher and lower. A nice theory in biology you might like to read about is the theory of competitive exclusion. No two species can have the same overlapping niche. It is advantageous for a species to have a different niche than the species it coexists with. Two species overlapping in niche will tend to either partition it, or one will outcompete the other. "A transitional species wouldn't know it's transitional. And the final wouldn't know it's final, and neither would we." They don't need to know to evolve. And since everything is transitional we cant always tell. Yes. "There are many kinds of wild cats living in America. They don't supplant one another." That is because they all occupy different niches. The jaguar is the big heavy one-capable of crushing skulls of prey and even dismembering nesting sea turtles The mountain lion feeds on somewhat different prey than the jaguar. The two overlap, but not completely. I suspect mountain lions would have trouble in Asia as they would be in a similar niche to leopards. When a competitively superior species is introduced (rats vs weta in new Zealand) the island form that evolved in isolation tends to go extinct. I figure if animals were specially created they would be more successful than any other species in their habitat/niche and you wouldn't see this happen. " Why would the latest version of a species supplant the older one? Does the older one just go sterile and give up when it see the new version? " -Natural selection. If conditions are such that the old species does not leave as many offspring as the new-it follows its numbers will decrease. It may die out entirely. "As for man being the greatest success story, I was talking about his intelligence, not the time he's been here. Either way, it's really a superfluous point. Why take it on?" Fair enough. "As to slavery, are you saying you think modern man killed off the inferior versions? Do you have any evidence of this or do you just wish it were true?" Nope, you brought that up. Evidence points to all the other species going extinct except for us. Nature has patterns. Not all patterns are intentional. Does that make sense? |
Re: Bible Versus Science
"Where are the snakes with little vestigial or nascent legs?"
Boas pythons and a few other groups of modern snakes have remnant limbs. Since snakes descended from lizards this makes perfect sense. "Where are the thousands of variations of fish that can also breath in water and land?" Lung fish will actually drown if prevented from surfacing to breathe. Many species of fish can gulp air into their swim bladders to get oxygen and some can survive days out of water. It would be a long list indeed to list all species that can extract oxygen from breathing air. Just to add to the paradox some amphibians have lost their lungs. One population of a tiny salmander lives in a deep lake in New York...these guys likely never come up for air. Many amphibians have both funxtioning gills and lungs...despite some rarely using the lungs. "There should be reptiles with fur and lizards with feathers" Both of these, if they occurred, would wreak current scientific explanations of vertebrate evolution...modern lizards with fur or feathers would actually be good arguments for design. Here's why in a simplified format. Let's start with the known evolutionary history of "reptiles" a very diverse group that is paraphyletic... -anapsids: this group broke off very early from other reptiles. Eventually lead to therapsids which show evidence of hair so hair should be unique to this groups descendants. Only survivors today are mammals. diapsids/sauropsids: which split into a few notable groups -one group split off crocodilians -the same group produce dinosaurs and thus birds. Feathers evolve in dinosaurs -another group that eventually lead to modern reptiles so well after splitting off...mammal like reptiles evolve fur. Feathers evolve in dinosaurs. The only surviving lineages of these two groups are birds and mammals respectively. it would be surprising indeed to find a furred modern reptile since the mammal reptiles separated quite early from the line that eventually gave rise to modern reptiles. Hair evolved after this split. Finding furry modern day reptiles would actually be trouble for our current understanding of evolutionary history. Feathered lizards would be just as bad. The feather(a marvelously intricate structure) appears to have evolved from protofeathers on bird ancestors(dinosaurs). Feathers on a modern lizard would annihilate the current archosaur bird theory. Nothing would stop a designer from sticking a few feathers on a lizard, though. "And mammals with scales." Pangolin? Though these scales are not reptile analogs. The musky rat kangaroo possesses scales as do the anomalurids (scaly tailed "squirrels"). Since the mammals are descendants of anapsid reptiles that split off way back in the carboniferous I would not expect them to have scales the same as modern reptiles. But yes, scaly mammals. "And there should be many different varieties of ape-men." All the dozens of these went extinct...lucky you. They exist if you care to look. "None of these exist." |
Re: Bible Versus Science
It's too late for the Bible. It's goose is cooked. The cat's already out of the bag. Science isn't going away. And facts are very stubborn things. Plus, no one educated in our modern times are gonna turn to books from the Bronze and Iron ages for what science is researching and documenting today. Bible lovers can hate on science until the cows come home, but won't ever stop the mass and momentum of science.
We should thank God for that ... else perchance we just be evil-eye ingrates. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
None of us was there at creation, so none of us knows for sure. None of this can be tested in a laboratory. Both camps are adherents of a religion of sorts, whether they like it or not. Real science requires testable evidence to prove or to predict one's interpretation or hypothesis. Obviously, when it comes to historical events, thousands or millions of years ago, neither side can can call itself "true science." Hence, whether a Bible adherent, either of the old earth or the young earth variety, or an adherent of Darwin, both groups are religious believers. The former believe God created all according to the Bible, and the latter believe that life resulted from random happen chance. But let's not fool ourselves -- our little debate here is not about the "Bible versus Science," since neither is actual science. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Evolution is science. End of story. To not understand why is to demonstrate lack of understanding of science. The godofevolution link(written by a Christian so you should be happy to read it) covers this.
Special creation is not testable nor falsifiable(evolution is...and i dont hide what would falsify it) so is not science. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
What science is stripping away is what once was believed to be caused by the hand of God. Take just the weather, for an example we can all relate to these days. Except for a few loony preachers, like Pat Robertson, and insurance companies, seeking to deny claims, no one any longer believes the hand of God is behind it. And that's because science not only allows us to see ever deeper into outer space than ever before, but also to be able to look down on the earth like never before. Now we can see, and track, weather systems. Science has revealed to all of us that weather is caused by natural laws and forces. As a result, we no longer see the hand of God behind weather. And the same goes for earth quakes, and blood moons. Because of science, by and large, the myths of God's hands being behind such natural phenomena have fallen away. And that's just one way science is disproving God ; which is just a by-product of science, and not a intentional plan or conspiracy. But I agree it can be seen by some that science is sneaking up on God, to disprove Him. But that ain't so. Science just proves that it is not the supernatural behind events, but actually that, they are caused by natural forces & laws ; no hand of God required. I reconcile this cognitive dissonance between God and science by seeing all the natural laws as the real Kingdom Laws, that we need to learn how to align with ; thus learning God's laws ; written by the real hands of God, if you will ; not from the hands of men. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Only a REAL moderator like Unto can end discussions, like he did with my comments about the 4th Reich. Maybe you are another MINO like awareness? |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
End a conversation? Moi? All I did was make a gentle suggestion.:)
Just remember that awareness is a MINO by choice. He's just a kind soul who wants everybody to like him, just like me. ADMIN - A Decent Man Insinuating Nothing :rolleyes2: |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Ohio: awareness has more patience in than i do in that regard-im just dissuading you from an unfruitful discussion path. Knowing the painstaking attention to detail these scientists have in exploring natural phenomena, their openness to entertain and debate new ideas(with valid evidence), and the fierce obstacles of getting research accepted as credible it is saddening to see it compared to goddunit nonexplanations.
Also note the only time I have questioned the motives of religious folk is when the skew the evidence(read: lie). I don't say all religious people are on a war against science-because they are not. You are welcome. Plenty of questions science can't explain...thats why i withhold comment in threads on doctrine ;) |
Re: Bible Versus Science
I look up to Darwin(though feel more affinity with Alfred Russell Wallace), but not the same way as a religious figure. Darwin can be wrong. How about an inaccuracy from his most well known book?
In Origin of Species Darwin puts forth that he thinks dog breeds were descended from perhaps 2 canine species. Maybe the jackal was the originator of the terrier breeds, for example. We know today domestic dogs all descend from the wolf...and i even think(but could very well be wrong) all of breeds from a single domestication event(vs wolves being domesticated in different places). So Darwin even underestimated the power of evolution. His views on sexual selection have been mostly put aside. His best explanation for the peacock is that females found it attractive. Today this is one of the most interesting fields in evolutionary biology. A book you may find at a bookstore is Dr. Tatianas sex advice for all creation. Its a horrendously funny read. Wallace was a bit of a nutjob later in life (too much arsenic?) but his "Wallace line" in the Southeastern archipelagos still stands...he is the founder of biogeography which to me presents some of the most convincing evolution evidence. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Has st. Augustine been brought up yet?
Also, awareness i recall your bringing up of the Cambrian explosion. I think the main reason it is ignored is that it is nonthreatening compared to say human evolution. Also you have to be in the know on organismal biology to grasp some of the conundrums presented...if thdy are all worms and bugs than it is of no consequence. This time period receives lots of attention in a book called "Darwins Doubt". The guy makes a case good enough that i was curious at first...and he does point out scientific uncertainty. Unfortunately after further looking this book really ought to be in the "Christian religion" rather than science section. The Cambrian is actually a very long time period, for one. These fossils are also very difficult to interpret since some are so bizarre. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
I'll take this one step further. I believe (based on verses like Heb 1.2-3, 11.3) that if God suddenly stopped "upholding" the universe, then all life would terminate, all planets would explode, or something worse. You are right. Lots of questions the Bible does't explain either. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Ohio: fair enough, as long as we don't mischaracterize the other side.
The difference is that evolution(and other fields in science) can predict and explain...special creation cannot. Since God apparently didn't give great detail (and we must reject the literal interpretation of portions of Genesis here to even keep this afloat)...we cannot really come up with a list of specific traits one would expect to find with special creation and the fall. I would hope one could see God and science in nature but some things that exist and have happened since the beginning of life are too horrific to attribute to a gracious creator alone. One is lead to two problems -assigning morality to natural things...does not work(did God or Satan endow the Argentine Lake duck?) -their is no point in the history of life that is a pleasant garden of eden...so "evil" then has existed since life began on this planet. Btw please ignore the emoticons at the top of these posts...lol i dont know why it is giving a thumbs down. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
And that's why in the Bible God does not "love everybody." In fact God seems at times in the book to be just as indifferent to human suffering and death as nature is. And I think that's why Bible believers, more often than not, reject universalism ; or that God's love will eventually win over everything and everyone. In the Bible God definitely doesn't love everybody. Early on He drowns everybody but a handful, including the innocent critters. And later it is said He will burn most everybody like stubble. So, not just in nature but even in the Bible we don't find a "gracious creator." |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Excellent point...and one that modern evangelicals are a bit sore to bring up.
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
You are speaking to yourself now, right? I don't think evolutionists have a clue about how demeaning their comments and generalizations are. Predict and explain? We really differ here. No science book in history has ever predicted the future as the Bible has. Of course, your iPhone is not specifically mentioned, but major events sure are. No garden of Eden? And science can conclusively prove it? Be careful what you believe! |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
On the "Fundamentalism" thread, christians were portrayed as mean, bigoted, judgmental monsters. Here, we are critiqued for not mentioning the judgments of old. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Ohio: we are drifting a bit away from this threads original course(maybe a new thread on accuracy of Bible including prophesies).
Comments like what i wrote would only be offensive if you hold your religion to standards of science(i would avoid this, because it is bringing a hockey stick to a soccer game). No one uses the Bible as a template to understand and find modern treatments for cancer(which, btw, are understanding of evolution is crucial in guiding breakthroughs in treatment of cancer). Hopefully no one uses science as a sole means of finding intrinsic value in life. On the Garden...a community consisting of only herbivorous animals and two humans(the first of their kind) in the middle east is not in line with current evidence. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Ohio: its hard to throw one net that encompasses Christians. I was referring to the popular modern day view of the Christian God as an all loving hippie, no strings attached. If you threw out most of the OT and some of the new this would be tenable. Im not judging either as more appropriate than the other...but i naturally prefer tolerance and understanding. Is Bible based faith the best medium for that?
But again, different topic. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Wishful mythology about man's and earth's history in NOT. It is merely a new age pagan religion. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Such "predictive" ability of evolution has its adherents convinced that man's future is bright and hopeful. Unfortunately your religion requires far too much blind faith for me to muster in a lifetime. In my short time here on planet earth, I have watched your "priests" preach a constantly changing message of gloom and doom. First I was haunted by the next impending Ice Age with images of being frozen in a massive block of ice like the Wooley Mammoth. Later Global Warming freaked me of pending skin cancer blistering in the noon day sun. Nowadays my future is even more uncertain under the dastardly fear tactics of Climate Change. Fortunately, for those so short of faith in this secular religion like myself, the current high priest is our faithful prez. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
But think about it. Fundamentalists consider the Bible God's inerrant word. And in it God is very judgmental. So by taking the Bible literal they can't help but pick up God's judgmentalism. And the same goes for their attitudes toward science. Taking the Bible literal means that it becomes a book of "facts" ; different than scientific facts. The 'facts' in the Bible contain many wondrous and fantastical supernatural miracles. These, of course, are not scientific sorts of facts, and are actually at odds with scientific facts. And that's why Bible inerrantists tend to distrust science, with its insistence on hard stubborn empirical facts, and resulting dismissal of Bible "facts." |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
And bro, I'd say all science is crappy but, since we're on a contraption science is responsible for, I'd be contradicting that position by just be on it. Bro, your field is engineering. Just look at evolution as mechanical processes. It does not speak to origins. It speaks to a sort of mechanical process of changes in life, which are undeniable. Teilhard de Chardin, of Noosphere fame - predicting the World Wide Web - also predicted, not physical evolution (we're not going to grow a third arm), but evolution of consciousness, to the Omega Point (of the one and only Alpha and Omega). I suppose we could see that as evolving to the New Heaven and New Earth & the New Jerusalem. Sometimes we just need to change how we see things. Like we're still doing since leaving the local church. Being open to God is being open to change. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Here's the problem with evolution. Evolutionists deny the existence of a creator, an Intelligent Designer, which is making improvements over time with each successive design. Random chance happen stance is supposed to have done all of this! That's pure nonsense! Take for example, pressure transducers, which I engineered decades ago. Evolution says that the components of stainless steel, electronics, strain gages, and heat for welding and soldering could be thrown into a bucket enough times that out came a product ready to sell. Try a million times. Not yet? Keep going! Try a billion times. Not yet? Keep going! Does that make any sense? No! Neither does a universe without God, or life on planet earth without God. Obviously you got problems with the Genesis record, but your alternative makes no sense. I would be more apt to believe in "My Favorite Martian" or Star Trek aliens than the evolution theories. I just don't have enough "faith" for that story. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Ohio: some evolution ary biologists step out of the realm of science to claim evolution disproves God. That I will readily admit.
But as science, evolution is great science. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Maybe that's the way it is with evolution. We just need to get to know it better. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
I've already mentioned Chardin, but there are many others. If you watch the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on youtube you'll see Ham, of the Creation Museum here in Kentucky fame, mention hordes of them. But I'm glad to see that you are starting to catch on. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Perhaps then, we are now still in the "pre-science" era? |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
I mentioned before that I have an autographed book by an old LC friend of mine, a professor of environmental science, who believes that God created the heavens and the earth thru evolution. The title says, "Seeing Christ in Evolution." Perhaps one day I'll read the book. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
And I googled "Seeing Christ in Evolution." I learned something from the proliferation of those that see Christ in evolution. Maybe that's just one aspect of Witness Lee's "All Inclusive Christ." I didn't realize the size of that movement. I agree it's nice to find Christians that aren't hating on science. Maybe we are evolving after all. And Oh! Don't let confirmation bias keep you from reading it. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
And since when was it the duty of the Biblical authors to record the ancient wonders, many of which were idolatrous monuments? In the good land, Yahweh instructed Israel to tear them all down. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
I would be willing to bet that the average person today is less intelligent and emotionally stable than the average Roman or Egyptian was back in the day,ad even more so if compared to pre-agriculture and division of labor.
Many genes go into making our brains the way they are...and selective pressure has lessened. The main difference in the last few hundred years is the speed of information sharing. So collectively we have indeed advanced in technological and scientific knowledge. I disagree with the so called pre science period. We all think scientifically. Modern hunter gatherer cultures that survive often have incredible knowledge on things like tracking and local natural history. Living immersed in it they almost have to develop this knowledge. Context and culture matter. It is little surprise to me we haven't figured out all the details of how pyramids were built...because we don't live in a world with those challenges, rextraints, and motives anymore. The advent of being able to record and share evidence made the difference. I wonder how much sooner the renaissance would have occurred had most of the world not fallen under the mind numbing spell of organized religion. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Concerning the "mind numbing spell of organized religion," I would like to place the blame not on religion per se, but on man's lust for power and control. Evil men use religion to subjugate others. Interestingly, except for widespread communication, Islam's "dark ages" have extended far beyond that of western culture. Except for innovative bomb-making, nearly no advances have emerged from those under that darkness. China also, under millennia of endless dynasties and dictators, suffered the same mental suppression until Mao died. Today's advances are not only due to information sharing, but also due to specialization. I have a nephew now studying spider webology in Taiwan. After he finishes his dissertation work for PhD study, he hopes one day to be the world's foremost expert on it. Talk about specialization. He has no need to know how to hunt, fish, cook, build, shelter, fight, or any of the basic survival life-skills. Just study spider webs. How good is that! And we think we are getting smarter via evolution. :rollingeyesfrown: |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Ohio: indeed specialization. Id love to pick your nephew's brain...though spider webology could encompass several fields(evolution/phylogenetic history of spider webs Materials/molecular,ecology, physiology,)
Using a true quantitative test(which is impossible due to culture) to tesg intelligence would be interesting. Evolution is not alwaysvabout the smartest, fastest, biggest, or strongest. It is about whichever traits in that particular environment promote survival and successful reproduction. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Evil men have been using religion and the Bible against science since Copernicus & Galileo. They've been relentless, even up to the present. But science has been kicking butt and taking names. Nothing has stopped it, or will. Not even the Bible. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Delete.Delete.Delete.
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Ohio does have an excellent point...some totalitarian regimes have been atheist in nature as well, even to the point of actively suppressing(killing) religious folk. This tends to be more of an iron fist sort of ruling, however, and incorporates some elements of religion in darn near deifying the people in charge. I do still think that the very nature and setup of religion allows it to be a particularly powerful manipulative tool used against people still living, even to go against logic. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Indeed xenophobia/tribalism may have protected from novel pathogens.
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
But it's become hard to mark out territory theses days, and we have WMDs to do it with. So taking the Promised Land today could result in WWIII. Now, tribalism, of the Biblical sort, has serious life and death consequences. And it might sound odd but, combining the Bible and Science could annihilate the human race ; since Armageddon no longer needs God, science can do it now. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
http://www.iflscience.com/brain/if-y...mass-shootings
I dont know how much i agree with experimental design...but this article is interesting. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Thanks for linking Intothewind. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
For those who avoid confronting their confirmation bias with inconvenient facts, here's an excerpt from the article that Intothewind linked below :
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Thank you zeek,
I am currently doing a lot of research on psychology/neurobiology/psychiatry. Right now it looks like researchers in these fields are much more divided than evolutionary biologists are on such things as a complete neurobiological basis to mental illnesses/disorders, the validity and revision of DSM-V categories etc. etc. It makes sense as this is a much younger field than evolution. For about a generation after Darwin's death biologists squabbled quite a bit over the validity of evolution...gradually different fields in science matured(physiology, molecular cell biology, genetics, ecology) and offered up evidence but at the time a lot was up for debate still. The shockingly annoying thing is that their is one religious group(Scientology) who is backing the anti-psychiatry movement. This seriously tarnishes the credibility of this side of the argument, but as someone who is not formally trained in this field I am having incredible trouble checking the legitimacy of allegations from the different sides of this issue...in the same way someone without knowledge of evolutionary biology might see some creationist allegations against the theory as possibly being scientifically valid when they are not. This is very frustrating for me in my pursuit of unbiased sources and knowledge. As for how this relates, to Bible vs Science...in my experience with the LC, while physical illness is one thing that people are comfortable with...mental illness is a whole nother issue. I remember a sister confiding in me that Dick Taylor had a supportive view of her being on antidepressants-he saw depression as a neurobiological problem in the brain and antidepressants no different than, say, taking insulin for diabetes, and not as a spiritual/moral failing as some members of the church paint it to be. I do recall a blended in a special meeting for upcoming college students specifically warning students away from pursuing a major in psychology. I expected biology to be one due to evolution but it seems that attempting to understand the mind as a biological entity is even more alarming/threatening. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
But eventually I found that none of that was true. Jesus is not the solution to every problem. One brother, for example, in the church in Miami, while in the LC, had so many DUI's that he was under house arrest. The elders told them they couldn't help him. That he had to go to AA, or some such treatment. And I found out about brothers, and sisters, that thought Jesus could save them from their homosexuality. He couldn't. What a let down! Jesus didn't live up to those expectations I had while in the local church. I guess all that Jesus has to offer is going to heaven when we die. I don't know. Quote:
An extreme example is provided in the debate between the science guy Bill Nye, and Creation Museum guy Ken Ham, that can be seen on youtube. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
"It was the old man/new man thing ; the "in Jesus the flesh is crucified" ; the transformation into his image ; the mingling, that I guess had me fooled."
Bingo-it is a setup for continued disappointment(and therefore a dependent relationship). "An extreme example is provided in the debate between the science guy Bill Nye, and Creation Museum guy Ken Ham, that can be seen on youtube." Which to my understanding basically involves Bill Nye running around presenting evidence and Ken Ham simply saying "no, not good enough..." meanwhile no "evidence" of creationism has been found to pass for more than religion dressed up. Their is debate among scientists in the usefulness of such a debate-many are in agreement that debating the demerits of creationism only serves to give the impression of credibility of the other side. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Are we hardwired to be religious because of EVOLUTION? Fear of God may have led humans to co-operate more which gave us an edge over other animals
"Religion is often seen as being at odds with the science of evolution, but according to a growing area of research, it may actually be a product of this fundamental biological process. Fear of incurring the wrath of God, or a range of gods, may have played a key role in the development of our species, according to a leading expert in the evolution of human co-operation. He argues that belief in a divine being who will punish bad behaviour may have allowed humans to co-operate in a way our relatives in the animal kingdom do not." "'It offers a striking twist on the old science and religion debate - religion is not an alternative to evolution, it is a product of evolution.'" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...e-animals.html |
Re: Bible Versus Science
That sounds quite plausible. I always kicked around the difficulty of the evolutionary advantage of religion per se...as it is more than culture.
Morality of sorts is quite common in the animal world. Perhaps at the most basal level large fish resist the temptation to eat cleaner shrimp or wrasse. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Throughout all of human history this one fact has proved itself unchangeable. None has escaped its power. This alone is a powerful rebuff to evolution. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
I just don't get why evolution has to be rebuffed. Didn't they rebuff gravity when Newton proposed it? |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Don't understand what Newton and gravity have to due with the nonsense we call evolution. And thank you. I have had a great holiday so far. Hope you have also! |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Plenty of species have traits that are unique to themselves...that is nothing new.
We will never know if chimpanzees believe in a deity. This is right at the edge of the realm of science as we risk anthromorphism by claiming such. They certainly have a sense of morality, fair play, and the like-which previously was considered only a human trait. If doing the right thing without others looking at you is religious-then chimps could well be religious.(that is really the extent of the definition in that article) In fact, rats have been shown to abstain from food when they realize that taking a food reward results in a companion in a cage next door being shocked. The more we look, the less unique we are. Homo species(I believe erectus is the earliest) have been found to bury their dead, in some cases pollen from the graves reveals they were buried with flowers and the like. This suggests they believed in an afterlife. Unfortunately we are the only extant species of the genus Homo, let alone Australopithecus, and a couple other genera. So religion may have evolved somewhere there. Darwin's theory of evolution is just as sound as Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is still valid and has not been disproven, but a new theory was required to encompass our greater understanding of physics(Einstein's relativity). |
Re: Bible Versus Science
A friend has family in Costa Rica, who are Catholic as is the tendency there.
She told me a story her grandmother told her. When her grandma was young, the little children would go down and play in the river that flowed through the town. Over time, the river got dirtier and dirtier. No one cared about the river. Trashed piled up in the river...and it soon was no longer a desirable place to play. When my friend went home to visit, her Grandmother told her "You should let people know this story and what we need to really care about. I am sad the children no longer can play here. You know, the church not that building or the people in it. The church is the river and it belongs to all of us. We need to care for it" No matter what your belief system, you accept that the river exists(unless you are crazy), and benefit from it. We should be working on things that we can all see and care about. And as far as help saving the river, science(yes evolution-which is as real as that river) is a critical tool for doing just that. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Where are their idols, statues, monuments, icons, images, etc.? There are none. Why not? Evolution demands that they have them. Look at all the birds. Far below the chimps in the evolutionary scale. Yet without an iota of instruction, each bird can weave a beautiful nest, and were well qualified to weave an idol if so inclined. But they are not. Never have been, and never will. Why is that? Because evolution is a farce. A system of lies. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Ohio: does religion need any of those things? No. I could be religious and leave no trace. Anyway the evidence left by homo erectus to me strongly implies religious belief of some sort. Strange you twist my words like that...i am only open to the possibility. After all, we used to think we humans were the only animals wigh culture and we now have examples of culture in several species.
Bird nests fit evolution perfectly. Birds are not taught to build nests...it is part of their genetic makeup. Calling birds lower again further demonstrages your misunderstanding of evolution. Sorry Ohio, evolution is not a farce nor lies. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
:crazy::crazy:Haha maybe the first religious war was a clan leader trying to justify a turf/tribal war(a trait we share with chimpanzees)
http:// http://funnyjunk.com/funny_p...eligious+wars/ |
Re: Bible Versus Science
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
I completely agree with the assertion that ALL historical evidence of man "strongly implies religious belief of some sort." If your definition of "culture" implies social order interaction among animals, then of course I agree. I thought we were discussing "worship" only. Quote:
God gave birds their "genetic makeup." I am thinking that it is you who totally misunderstands His creation. My own genetic makeup makes it impossible for me to believe in the lies of evolution. Sorry. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
What evolution refuses to take into account is that mankind was created naturally good by God, but has been grossly damaged by sin, and many of man's attempts at religion, orchestrated by satanic influences, have become incredibly stupid and devastatingly destructive. The Bible tells us that unless Jesus actually returns to earth in person, man will end up destroying himself, all choreographed by satan, the god of this age. But let's not forget that "Islam is a religion of peace." There you have it folks ... I am now officially PC! :p |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Culture is more complex than that. Culture is learned and passed down through the generations like religious customs are(watch toddlers learning to say amen). Unlike nest building, it is not innate. Some dolphin pods hunt in very specific ways, and different troops of primates will have different customs in, say, whether or not to wash a food item...the same thing in principle as children learning what to wear, eat, and maybe believe.
I did not state chimps are religious...i am open to the possibility, admitting it is difficult to find evidence for. Actually, watching videos of elephants around dead elephants i get the chills. That behavior suggests a lot more is going on than we might want to admit. The thing is, Ohio, creation does not make sense at all. For example, birds are often helpless to sudden change, because heir nest building habits are ingrained and would take time to change via evolution. God must really like rats and hate island birds. He made them flightless and created them as ground nesters...knowing that man would bring rats around the world to destroy them...praise him! If God created them i would expect to find each creature superior in its given place by God. Not the case. Evolution explains handily, however. Cry bias or evolutionary glasses if you want. Ive spent more research, deep thought, and yes, prayer on this than id like to admit and i got sick and tired of lying to people that creation points to a creator of the biblical sort. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
awareness disses religion at every turn, (and I'm fine with that) and the two of you have bought into the entire evolutionary program, but how did man become religious without the intervention of God, satan, or other alien life forms? Obviously religion is not a recent discovery like the internet, because it has been used since the dawn of time to make idols and to kill one another. Since we have never had an animal species (from birds to snakes to chimps to dolphins to elephants to even dogs) that exhibited this tendency to worship, and we have never had a human civilization which did not, how can we attribute the existence of man to evolution? awareness constantly reminds us that human beings, in every possible way, are just like the worst of the animal kingdom. Then in this one crucial point ... religious worship ... how can we be that different? You keep saying that evolution answers all the questions, and creation does not, so how do we explain this? I would admonish you to keep researching, thinking, and praying on this matter, but also to add faith in Jesus Christ into the equation. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Ohio: as mentioned, we do not know for sure. Awareness shared a neat link that proposes an interesting hypothesis.
My point in bringing elephants and the like into this discussion is that they appear to honor their dead. I highly doubt we ever will find religious elephants...but even if elephants believed in a deity...we could not have a satisfactory way of asking them. In a nutshell We are the most complexly social of the mammals. If belief in a deity resulted in less conflict which would be beneficial, then it would be selected for. So no huge barriers to the evolution of religiousity in humans. I look forward to additional findings. As another twisting of words...i have never claimed that science has all the answers. That is tbe strength of science...it is progressing, exploring, disproving, through the ages. Oh yes, i checked your 2nd never statement. This depends on how you define religion. Religion only being found in man does not pose a problem for the theory of evolution, it only begs an explanation. Plenty of organisms have traits unique to their species. I am plenty familiar with faith in Jesus, thank you. It seems to lead to science denial alot which is disturbing. I have run into some Christians who are knowledgeable on evolution and they are pleasant...and perhaps id be open to that someday...though still lots of unanswered questions. I was one for a while and it was rather amphibious and i ran into enough creationists church hopping that i eventually chucked the religion thing entirely. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
awareness says man has devolved, not evolved. Not much support for Darwin there. Quote:
Evolution, supposedly, is not at all about what we imagine humans or animals are thinking, but an objective study of their remains. Where is the evolutionary development of idolatry in animal, any animals, which then was further developed by man? Quote:
Since you have totally rejected the agency of a divine creator, what new proposal do you offer to support your failing theory? Martians? Quote:
How can man have evolved when the most important item in humanity did not evolve? Help me out here please. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Do Monkeys and Apes Have Spiritual Rituals?
http://scooponprimates.blogspot.com/...spiritual.html |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Sorry Ohio, your arguments suffer from the following
-making alway, never, and sure statements that you cannot support. -grave misunderstanding of the theory and selection process -lack of imagination for the future I will try to address your concerns nevertheless. First, we must define religion. I will leave that to you. You seem so concerned with idol worship. Then is animism not religion? I don't see how idolatry in humans disproves evolution anymore, than, say, the existence of rampant homosexuality in the animal kingdom...or any other observation Would worship or idolatry benefit elephants?(maybe, maybe not) And if they did worship, could we observe it? I dont think we could. That link awareness linked explains how religion could have evolved as advantageous. It doesn't seem that you have read its explanation. Their are going to be drawbacks to any evolved trait....particularly in an environment different than what they were evolved in. Flight was considered impossible. To know how the sun generates energy? We now know the biological basis behind a thought and can watch it shoot through a nerve cell. Skeptics thought sequencing the human genome would be impossible. But... We still dont understand everything about how a bird flies...and never quite will We still do not know what is going on in the deep sea. It was onced considered depauperate but new sampling methods are changing that And, on a more minor note, we dont have a detailed picture of how religion evolved. I will argue that religion is just a further expression of culture...which we also observe in animals but that in man evolved into what we call religion. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Awareness : ive wondered about those dawn and dusk animal rituals. If anyone reading has never listened to the dawn chorus of birds you are missing out.
I realize the evolutionary advantages of these rituals. Reannouncing claim to a territory is a biggie(not hearing your neighbor? He musta got eaten last night and his spot is up for grabs!) In social animals like primates...putting aside the dominance hierarchy for a bit while everyone grooms each other lowers stress and reaffirms friendship ties. Monkey small group time? But watching em all, watching ground squirrels emerge onto a slope to face the rising sun...i bet they enjoy those mornings. Maybe they are thankful they survived the night. Thankful to the land that so far has provided. Who knows? |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
I will admit that I am not into sci-fi, never seen Star Wars, and so I appear to possess a "lack of imagination for the future." Will the book of Revelation suffice for me? The definition of religion I have used for this discussion is not related to social rules and interactions, but idolatry, i.e. the forming of objects of worship. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
And Into, yes Animism is a religion. From what I've read was once the only universal religion on the earth. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Ohio: You can pull 100 apples from a barrel. The next could be an orange. In the real world you can'tt tip the barrel over. Pulling the orange tells you their are at least 2 kinds of fruit in that barrel. But we cannot conclude for certain their are only 2 types of fruit. What we can say for certain is we have disproved that the barrel contains only apples.
Also, you are pulling from the entirely wrong barrel. Idolatry does not disprove evolution. I already gave you, igzy, and j4me a list of things that would disprove it. Not only that, but since we dont have a definition of what religion might look like, we cannot pull apples from the barrel and know they are apples. Youd be forgiven for thinking you had a barrel of apples after pulling 100 apples. You would appear foolish if you didn't even open the barrel, proclaimed they were all apples, and then be shown to not even know what an apple looks like! Gee...sounds like all the statements in this thread that gave turned out incorrect. So in short...i don't think animals are religious either. But i dont know what would constitute religion and i know i have no way of telling...we are still wrestling with identifying self aware ess, empathy, and mind theory in animals... But i am not going to...err...make a blanket statement with no evidence...as has happened spectacularly several times in this thread. Awareness: maybe not praises per se, but the sheer joy of living. While we know why, say, social sysyems evolved, we seek out companions without always thinking about the evolutionary drive behind it. Actually, humans may be the only species to be able to ponder and understand the evolutionary process even as we are a product of it. Next time youre up for a dawn chorus....see if you can track which birds start singing when. Different species get up at different times. Birds also try to slip their calls in between each other's. Each species is really only concerned about hearing calls of others of its kind so it does no one any good to be shouting over each other. But the sooner they finish restating claims to a territory and patrolling the boundaries the sooner they can get on to other tasks of the day. Sometimes you get lonely bachelors without a turf or territory well into the nesting season. My favorite are lonely mockingbird males who will literally sing all night long. Birds might also be seen as the picture of monogamy. Like humans, it takes 2 in many birds to successfully defend a territory and rear a family. However with the advent of dna testing and careful behavior observations we have observed both sexes going out of their way for extrapair matings(affairs in human terms). So a devoted bird dad could well be rearing the offspring of himself and at least 1 more bird...but he may have done some sneaking around the neighborhood himself. I don't think for a minute the birds are considering the evolutionary benefits of their whims. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Have a happy new year! We probably have exhausted this current topic. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
"it is not simply that females mate with lots of males. It’s that doing so is good for them: promiscuous females have more and healthier children. Natural selection, it seems, often smiles on strumpets. Sorry, boys." Judson, Olivia (2003-05-01). Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation: The Definitive Guide to the Evolutionary Biology of Sex (p. 59). Henry Holt and Co.. Kindle Edition. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Awareness: I found a book recently that you may enjoy. ..'evolution for everyone' by David Sloan Wilson. It looks at evolution to explain such oddities as art appreciation, xenophobia, pregnancy sickness...and so on.
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Anyway, I held my nose and bought the Kindle format. Thanks again H-a |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Evolution does not replace the creation. Also, please note, the New Testament says very clearly that there was only 1 creation. That indicates that this single act of creation resulted in every single life form we find today. How? I think the theory of evolution does a good job of explaining how. That said, I think there are some very important questions about it that have not yet been answered. I don't think these questions undermine the basic premise that life has evolved on this planet, but these are questions that I think the current theory does not answer. 1. How is it that man can read? Our brain uses an inordinate amount of energy compared to other mammals, that would be seen as a competitive disadvantage in the current theory of evolution. One reason for our very expensive brain is the amount of grey matter devoted to language, particularly reading and writing. So my question is this: supposedly there was a change in the DNA that caused our brain to change. But why would that be a competitive advantage? There were no books to read and how could writing be helpful if no one else can read? We lost our photographic memory in exchange for this ability to read. A photographic memory is a very big advantage to hunter gatherers who need to remember where food is. It does not make sense to me that reading and writing was a competitive advantage to the very first humans who got this genetic trait, especially at the cost of losing a photographic memory. 2. Man has "evolved" at an extraordinary rate over the last 10,000 years. Yet we can see termite mounds that are tens of millions of years old that suggest they have not evolved at all for tens of millions of years. Why? Why does man evolve at a different rate than termites? According to the theory evolution is the result of random mutations in DNA, why wouldn't the rate of these mutations be the same or similar from one species to another? 3. Man is a Eugenic creature. We are one of 19 species that are Eugenic. Yet of the other 19 we are the only one that chooses to be. According to the theory of evolution we evolved from species that are not Eugenic. No one has attempted to explain this. Why out of millions and millions of species on this planet are we so unique? Also, please note that it is the Bible that teaches us to be a Eugenic species, and this trait is what makes us such a dominant species on this planet. So then, your explanation has to include the impact the Bible has on man's success as a species. As it turns out a small percentage of the human population are psychopaths. To a human a psychopath is cold blooded killer. Yet, to the species that we supposedly have evolved from psychopaths are just normal. There is nothing evil or extraordinary for a snake, or bird, or chimpanzee to act like a psychopath. Why are we so different? |
Re: Bible Versus Science
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
People in many fields, including evolutionary biology, anthropology and sociology, have long debated whether the evolution of the human brain was a special event. I believe that our study settles this question by showing that it was.
Bruce T. Lahn http://www.hhmi.org/news/human-brain...-special-event Originally the prevailing teaching in Evolution was that man, like any other creature, evolved based on the same process. If that were true the rate of evolution should fall within the same boundaries and limits of all species. This is not true and as of yet there is no reasonable explanation for this from evolutionary biologists. That said it does support the Bible's assertion that all other creatures were created after their kind and that man, unlike every other creature, was created after the image and likeness of God. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
The Bible is not a book of science but a book of life. That means, if you use your Bible to pass your science exams you will fail! But if you use the Bible to pass the "life exam", you will pass.
No where in the Bible does God ever correct someones science. God only ever corrects peoples lives. God was content to let Moses believe the Earth was flat. The science in the Bible is wrong by modern standards (majority of the Old Testament was written with the science of the Egyptians/Babylonians, in which Moses was educated). A person can believe in the Bible and also believe in evolution as long as it does not deny God, however, instantaneous creation was the most popular view in the early church. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
I have enjoyed the book The Language of God by Francis Collins. He is a believer and the man who mapped the human genome.
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
What does it mean? Murmuring? Manna? Quail? Wilderness? |
Re: Bible Versus Science
My name is coriander, pulled from Exodus 16.
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
See 'Ancient Hebrew Cosmology' here: http://tatania.phsx.ku.edu/phsx594/ancient-links.html An early-twentieth-century conceptualization of ancient cosmology. Early Hebrews conceived of the universe as consisting of a disk-shaped Earth that was the center of the cosmos, in which a domelike sky was supported by pillars of heaven. From G. L. Robinson's Leaders of Israel (New York: Association Press, 1913), p. 2. https://ncse.com/image/ancient-hebrew-cosmology Knowing that, we know why Isaiah 40:22 says this: He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. In all of God's communication with Moses, the prophets and with Job, God never thought it necessary to correct their incorrect cosmology. Hence, the Bible is not a book of science. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Evolution doesn't really bother me. Knowing a little of the process of creation does not preclude a creator. When I look at the simple 4 piece structure yet infinite variation possible from it; I see God's hand.
Also bc I grew up in the Lc, whenever we heard about the number four as the number of creation in my mind I always saw AGTC the rings in DNA common to all living creation. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
I love living fossils. Magnolias and ginkgo trees have remained unchanged for millions of years, as have certain orchids and horsetails. Other plants and animals have shifted and changed. I don't really understand why, but it is wonderful to me. One believer tried to explain evolution to me as God's garden, without little niches and various different environments evolution produces flies, cockroaches and rats, but with small isolated ecosystems wonderful bounteous varieties of life is produced. (I'll have to ask him to re explain so I can express it better here.)
I like that the world is billions of years old and the sun even older. The name of my God is the Ancient of Days! 6,000 years seems pretty small in comparison. I recently learned that our sun is likely a third generation star - on what day in Genesis is the sun created? I believe science cannot possibly explain who God is, but that one day it will be revealed that the Bible is literally and figuratively true. How's that song go? "Truths unchanged from the dawn of time, that will echo down through eternity" Though admittedly, I'm no bible scholar, I like science and see God there. Science does not threaten God and it shouldn't intimidate Christians. In fact, Western science is predicated on a rational God who created a logical knowable universe. I like looking for his fingerprints in the mystery & grandeur of it all. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
I think scientists encourage this misunderstanding. I really enjoyed Neil Tysson Degrasse when he first came on the scene. But he prefers to puff himself up going after creationists and third graders mourning Pluto,rather than believing scientists.
Even Hawking a knowledges in his book A Brief History of Time that after a certain point in astrophysics you are required a leap of faith wether you believe in God or not. (He has since taken up a more rigidly atheistic stance.) Personally, I think the real impasse is bc neither side will do the homework. Much of what was being purported and argued against in this is not the actual science, nor the actual Bible. The 6,000 year timeframe comes from an Irish priest's Bible study an extrapolation not written specifically in the word of God. Somebody could tell you his name. He doesn't account for God cutting out generations. Nor does he reconcile his timeframe with God the Ancient of Days. When we limit God based on our own understanding we worship a stunted god and become small minded people. I may not have all the definitive answers of astrophysics, geology, evolution etc. but they fascinate me as I see them as a facet of God not as competition. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The conception back then was that the earth was a three layered cake. With a flat earth, hades below, and heaven just above the dome. Perhaps this is why Jesus is depicted as ascending to heaven. It wasn't thought of as being that far up. Now we know that if Jesus traveled at the speed of light he wouldn't be out of the Milky Way galaxy yet. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Christians are "afraid" of evolution because the next generation is deceived into believing there is no creator, and therefore no God. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
I think the scientists are not truly honest, because there are many very reasonable and troubling questions about the evolution of man versus the evolution of other species. On the other hand there are many who take a stance so strong against Evolution that they say that either you believe God created the Universe or you believe evolution. I have heard these ones speaking and teaching. I think this is a very ignorant approach. Because I am a high school science teacher I hear this frequently from my students that somehow what we teach is contrary to the Bible and contrary to their faith. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Acts 7:22 Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. I quoted Isaiah to show that everyone in the old testament thought like that. God's chief prophets were no exception. Why a ceiling at all? I know why - they believed the sky was hard: Job 37:18 "can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?" (NIV) Question: If the earth is not flat how is it possible for Jesus to see all the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain? Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. So it is not really a question of Bible versus science, but "ancient science versus modern science". Why did God not correct this scientific error? I believe for the same reason we do not correct our children if they believe that babies come from storks. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The Bible also states that Moses talked face to face with God as a friend, perhaps they talked about God's creation during some of those times. Did it ever occur to you that unlike many who were trained in the ways of the Egyptians Moses had direct revelation from God? I reject your conclusion. There are many things that the average person today thinks is true which I reject. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Most people (both Christian and not) do think that "either you believe God created the Universe or you believe evolution." You learn this when you talk to them. You can't just blame Christians for this, the education system promotes this. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
I could go on and on. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
If I use the Bible for science, I would conclude that the Earth is flat, because the Bible is full of ancient, not modern, science. The Bible representing the cosmology of the ancient Hebrews is a known fact. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
I don't mind if they teach children about the Bible in public school as long as they tell them that the bible gives us no way to advance in the knowledge of how things work. Living like people did 2000 or more years ago is not a live option for anybody. Fundamentalists know this as can be seen by how they live as opposed to what they say. Even the Amish use modern technology selectively. https://groups.etown.edu/amishstudie...es/technology/
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
If you take the Bible literally, then evolution does contradict the written accounts.
Zpanaahs earlier post looks to have some misconceptions on evolution. Human evolution is well documented...but harder to stomach for folks in the faith. I didn't accept it until mid college since to look at the evidence too much while younger would have forced a worldview change I wasn't prepared for... |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Im not sure where the idea of evolution happening at the same rate comes from. Rate of evolutionary change is going to vary depending on the selection pressure, mutation rate, variability, etc. Etc....in the same way that beaches do not all have the same amount or particle size of sand.
Evolution if the human brain is interesting...but not the only time something energetically expensive evolved quickly. It is incredible that said brain can now, if it wishes, understand the process by which it came to be. What we are less sure of is what selection pressure encouraged the evolution of the human brain, but a variety of things could result in differential reproductive success of bigger brained hominids inspite of the cost of maintaining such brains. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Many scientists are spiritual as well. Nothing wrong with that. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
http://www.centerforabetterworld.com...al-atheism.htm Science can only prove so much. There's lots of mysteries out there. Most we don't even know about yet (like dark matter). But I like what science has provided for us today, even tho it has a bad side too (like nukes). Jesus may have healed some back when, but science has healed whole diseases, not just a guy here and there. Still, science gets a bum rap from many Bible believers. And I can see why. Science gives us no certitude we can grab onto like the Bible does. Science is always changing. There's new discoveries every day. We all today reap the benefits of science, including even many of the most avid Bible addicts ... that like to debunk it while using it. So far, whenever there's been a disagreement between the Bible and science, science has won. Facts can be very stubborn. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
How about changing that to "evolution gets a bad rap." |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Scientists working with Big tobacco manipulated the chemistry of cigarettes to maximize their addictiveness. The same is true of scientists working with food companies. They have intentionally manipulated the sugar content, not because that is what people like to eat, but rather it results in more consumption. Advertising is very scientific, designed to brain wash you and manipulate you. Drug companies are now marketing very addictive drugs like meth and heroin. The science of warfare has made killing people a very efficient and profitable business. Imagine what the world would be like today if Hitler had gotten the bomb first? I guess the world is safe as long as the US is the main superpower and we don't get a megalomaniac as a leader. Science has realized that the delivery system for the bomb is more effective if it is smaller, cheaper, easier to mass produce. Our drones today are a tiny fraction of the cost of our top of the line stealth fighter jets yet they may be just as stealthy, just as fast, and much cheaper to operate in the event they do get shot down because we don't loose the pilot. The problem is that any two bit dictator can afford his own drone. It may not be quite as good but so what, he doesn't need to be surgical. Imagine Hitler, or ISIS or some angry teenager with a drone. No where has science made better strides than in telecommunications with our satellites, space ships, smart phones, Siri, Watson, etc. But along with that we also have Snowden, Anonymous, computer hacks, identity theft, and comprehensive all inclusive surveillance. Imagine what Hitler would do if he were running the NSA. Facts can be stubborn. It seems to me that it will be inevitable that one day science will lose, I don't mean some little debate over this or that theory, no I mean lose as in cause the extinction of the human race. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
It doesn't have to be that way, but it is. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
And the gap theory was invented by Bible beliebers that had to make the Bible align with science. Science proved the earth is older than 6000 years old. It's science time and again. Science has knocked the Bible to the mat many times ... and will likely continue to do so. Science, science, science. If science is a god it's a god that get things done, that has something to show for it. We owe a lot to science. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intothewind View Post What science allows is for observations and predictions about the natural world. And many natural things involve probabilities. How are you better than science for disliking reality? Anything that is considered supernatural does not fit into the definition of science. So religion can do what science cannot. Many natural things exhibit chaos and randomness. But chaos and randomness cannot create new things. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Also, don't forget there have been just as many, if not more, erroneous theories that were supposedly scientific that have also been disproved. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
https://aplanetruth.info/2015/03/23/...rth-teachings/ When science questions these things in the Bible, most Christians try to defend them from a theological standpoint, and it brings the spiritual teachings of the Bible into question. The reason they are defeated is because they are arguing spiritual truths and ancient science combined. Modern science is attacking the spiritual teachings by attacking the ancient science. But as we know the spiritual teachings are time-less. A better approach in my view is to acknowledge the ancient scientific worldview that the Bible's (human) authors had, and explain how this does not change or affect the spiritual meaning. In other words, argue against the scientific argument not from theology's point of view but from science's point of view. So instead of Bible vs Science we have (Bible (God's Word) with ancient science vs modern science). Science cannot question that to which science does not apply - the spiritual or paranormal things. When science questions the Bible it is really questioning the ancient scientific view that its human authors had. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
No one invented the gap. It was there all along. Some just decided to study Genesis more closely. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
For just one example : It's easy to interpret a flat earth in the Bible. It's not clearly spelled out, but there's enough to conclude that, "according to God's word" the earth is flat ; tho nothing definitive can be found in the Bible. Now, aren't we glad today that, that interpretation was knocked to the mat? Can I get an AMEN?!? All wrong interpretations of the Bible belong on the mat. Now, after getting stopped in my tracks, I can read on: Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Are you actually going to say the Bible teaches the Earth is flat because of the King Nebuchadnezzar, a Babylonian king, who had a dream that he could see to the ends of the Earth? If that is your example I will destroy it. Please give me your best example of the Bible teaching "ancient science" so that we can examine it. Thanks |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Quote:
As for science being "an open system". I am a scientist, but lets be clear science is merely a tool. You put it in an evil man's hands and it is an evil tool, you put it in the hands of good man and it is a good tool. You can make drugs to save people, you can make drugs to have a mass extermination chamber. But the discoveries and theories are all concerning the God's creation. We are doing what the NT tells us to do, we are becoming "imitators of God". Every single scientific discovery that you are so gleeful over is merely a further expression of the glory of God. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
You guys bandy about all these claims without the faintest shred of evidence. Not very scientific. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
From https://sites.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/...nt_science.pdf The Old Testament clearly presents the immovability of the earth. Three verses repeat word-for-word, “The world is firmly established; it cannot move” (1 Chr 16:30; Pss 93:1, 96:10). Over twenty-five times, biblical writers use engineering terms like foundations and pillars to conceptualize the earth’s stability. For example, Ps 104:5 states that, “God set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved” (cf. 1 Sam 2:8; Ps 75:3; Job 38:4–6). The ancient Hebrews saw that mountains, hills, and plains remained constant throughout their lifetime, and they logically reasoned within their ancient intellectual category set that the earth was stationary. Job 26:7–14 describe the creation of the world. The former states, “God inscribed a circle on the face of the deep” (v. 27); and the latter, “God has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters” (v. 10). The Hebrew word translated as circle (h?ûg) refers to a two-dimensional geometric figure. It is sometimes rendered in English Bibles as horizon or compass, indicating a flat surface. Undoubtedly, Prov 8:27 and Job 26:10 depict the opening scene in the Bible when “darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters” (Gen 1:2). Therefore, instead of beginning with a sphere of water enveloping a global earth, as eisegetically pictured by most twenty-first century readers, God starts with a flat surface of water upon which He draws a circle to create the horizon. In a verse that is well known to Christians, the Bible asserts that the earth is circular. The prophet Isaiah writes, “God sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out Fig 3-4. Geography of Ancient Near East Ancient Science in the Bible the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in” (Isa 40:22). Again, the Hebrew word translated as circle refers to a twodimensional flat surface. The context of the verse complements this interpretation. Isaiah compares the universe to a tent that features a domed canopy over a flat floor. Psalms 19:4 and 104:2 also use the tent analogy to describe the structure of the world. Therefore, the correct understanding of Isa 40:22 is that God looks down from heaven and sees the entire earth and its circular border meeting the circumferential sea. Thinking about this logically, Moses was educated by the Egyptians. It does not say Moses was educated by God. This also means the Israelites were educated in the Egyptian system. If the Israelites knew the Earth was spherical when everyone else around them thought it was flat, it would be remarkable yet also highly unlikely thing. It would be equivalent to saying that the Israelites knew how to build an airplane before the Wright brothers. Of course logically it does not make sense. The Israelites could not have known the earth was spherical when the Egyptians were far ahead in terms of scientific knowledge and advancement. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
One of the most amusing scientific errors in the Bible is that God and the Israelites apparently did not know the value of Pi. 1 Kings 7:23-26 says 23 Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and [a]thirty cubits in circumference.
So, a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 gives a value of Pi to be 3.0, not 3.14... Either the Israelite's were limited in their scientific knowledge or God is a poor mathematician/engineer. The error is repeated again in 2 Chronicles 4:2-5. This is a problem and casts doubt on the Bible being a scientific book. Example: Little Johnny goes to school and takes his bible to math class, having been informed by his pastor that the bible is scientifically accurate and true in every respect. The teacher asks everyone to calculate the value of Pi as a test. Based upon these verses Johnny divides a circumference of 30 by a diameter of 10 and concludes that the value of Pi is 3.0. The teacher says sorry that is wrong it is 3.14. Little Johnny is upset and tells the pastor. The pastor re-assures Johnny that His bible is a trustworthy scientific book and that he should trust the Bible over the teacher. Little Johnny grows up to be an engineer. He continues to use the value Pi = 3.0 throughout his working life. Matter of fact he is always underestimating the cost of projects and can never get a pipe diameter the right size, he does not understand why. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern...arth_societies And that's just a start. Then you can read more bandying here: https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/ |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The Bible never indicated that Pi was 3.0, rather 3 for a value. 3 contains one significant figure, which is accurate, but not precise. 3.0 contains two significant figures. You have added a level of precision, but have sacrificed accuracy. When the "sea of cast metal" is 10 cubits brim to brim, and 30 cubits in circumference, they are defined by only one significant figure. Hence, using a value of 3 for Pi is perfectly acceptable. -- Taken from my very first Engineering class, back in the day when slide rules were the rule. Evangelical's criticism of the Bible here is so typical of this generation, growing up on calculators. As the old saying goes, "a little knowledge is dangerous." |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
I'm not sure this has anything to do with science, but I submit they got their form of monotheism from the Egyptians. A form that excludes any and all other gods. That started with : Amenophis IV in the 14th c. BC, also known as Akhenaten, who declared Aten the one true God, and then destroyed all other statues and temples of all the other gods, thus negating Egypt's polytheism. Maybe this deserves another thread. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
1. Bible teaches the Earth is stationary — 1Chr 16:30 the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved. — KJV The world is firmly established — amplified version The world also is established, it shall not be moved — Darby The world also is established that it cannot be moved. — ASV 31*Also, established is the world, It is not moved! — Young’s Literal the tevel (world) also shall be firmly establishehed, that it be not moved. — OJB *In the beginning Elohim created hashomayim (the heavens, Himel) and haaretz (the earth) — Genesis 1:1 The verse is referring to the world, not the Earth. Is there anyone credible that can provide a credible claim? This is so sloppy it is revolting. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Quote:
The people who push this garbage have spent all of 5 minutes reading the Bible, the rest is just their assumptions of what must be, not what is. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The concern here is that if the Bible is to be trusted for science, then it is not precise or accurate enough to be used for science. It is also a concern when a scientist and an engineer does not know these basic concepts. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_astronomy two different cosmologies can be found in the Talmud. One is a flat Earth cosmology resembling descriptions of the world in the mythology of the Ancient Near East. The other, is a geocentric model, according to which the stars move about the earth. According to Aristotle, Ptolemy, and other philosophers among the Greeks, the stars have no motion of their own, being firmly attached to spheres whose center is the earth. A passage in the Talmud, the Baraita Pesahim 94b contrasts the pagan view with that of Jewish sages: The learned of Israel say, "The sphere stands firm, and the planets revolve"; the learned of the nations say, "The sphere moves, and the planets stand firm." The learned of Israel say, "The sun moves by day beneath the firmament, and by night above the firmament"; the learned of the nations say, "The sun moves by day beneath the firmament, and by night beneath the earth." |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Just give me the Bible verse that has been disproven by modern science. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
OK, according to you "the true value of pi is 3.14..." which is hysterical but probably something only geeks would laugh at. But you have already rounded it off to 2 decimal places. If you agree to round it to 2 decimal places then yes, that is accurate, but not that precise. 3.14159... is more precise. If we decided to round it to 5 decimal places this would be accurate and also more precise than your use of 3.14. This doesn't make 3.14 wrong, it is accurate, only not as precise. With the same reasoning, if we agree with 1 decimal place then 3.1 would be accurate. Not as precise as 3.14 but still just as accurate given that we are using 1 decimal place. Now that we have defined the terms accuracy and precision we need to learn how you can introduce inaccuracy and a false sense of precision. If all of the numbers I use are accurate to 1 decimal place, I cannot then give a result of my equation as being accurate to 2 decimal places, because I am introducing a false illusion of precision that my initial observations and measurements did not have. For example, I could weigh an object on a scale that gives me to the closest tenth of a pound, and then divide that by another weight, again to the closest tenth of a pound. This fraction might be a repeating fraction so I could carry those numbers out till it looks like I have calculated this fraction down to the atoms and sub atomic particles. My scale was not nearly precise enough to do that and giving the impression that it was would be false. Therefore my accuracy can not be any more precise than the precision of the tool I used to measure. Now, going to the Biblical text, I have never once seen the Bible use decimals. That is not to say they didn't have that level of precision, only that in the Bible it was not recorded. This does not make any of their numbers inaccurate. Everyone agrees that pi is 3 if we are rounding to the nearest integer. That is accurate, and if that is the level of precision for the Bible which uses numbers as symbolic, then so be it. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
https://www.ncsu.edu/labwrite/Experi...yprecision.htm You seem to be talking about numerical precision which results in an inaccurate measurement. At least one of the numbers as recorded in the Bible is wrong - either the diameter, the circumference, or the value of Pi that the Israelites used. This is easily proven. If we multiply a diameter of 10 by a more precise value of pi, assuming the Israelites knew this more precise value, the rounded circumference to the nearest integer is 31, not 30. The recorded measurements are therefore inaccurate by a whole cubit or about 17 inches. If the Israelites knew the true value of Pi to at least 1 decimal place, it would say the circumference was 31, not 30. Precision is closely related to the concept of reliability. An imprecise measurement is an unreliable measurement. Therefore the Bible is imprecise and unreliable and cannot be trusted for scientific use. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
That is referring to the accuracy and precision of a measurement. We have not made any measurements and have no reason to assume the Israelite measurements are inaccurate. The correct rule is this: Significant Digits in Multiplication, Division, Trig. functions, etc. In a calculation involving multiplication, division, trigonometric functions, etc., the number of significant digits in an answer should equal the least number of significant digits in any one of the numbers being multiplied, divided etc. see https://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tuto...ig/SIG_dig.htm Based on the account the least number of significant digits used in the calculation was 1, therefore pi, which you are calculating using division, should only be given as one digit. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
But that's OK. It never seemed to bother you before. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
It's sad to me that ones like Evangelical, when faced with reasoned analysis on pertinent topics, so easily dismiss it as know-it-alls, and then provide erred opinions cloaked in pseudo-science. (I Tim 6.20) |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
So, what's being defended here is not the Bible in and of itself, but rather that the Bible was/is inspired of God. That way the Bible has to be right about everything, even science, and math. It's already been mentioned that science has not knocked the Bible to the mat, but rather the interpretations of the Bible. What science is knocking to the mat today is another mistaken concept of the Bible : that the Bible was written by men of their times, and was not inspired of God. And the flat earth society will just not let that go. They are clearly not alone. They have buddies out here, that are still hanging onto that mistaken concept, that will now castigate me for claiming inspiration is a mistaken concept. So I guess it's time for me to gird up my loins. I'm clearly going to have to be a ninja (is that in the Bible? everything has to be in the Bible - it was inspired of God, who knows everything, right?). |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
I think Evangelical is a brilliant comedic writer, unless he wants to be taken seriously. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
"Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved." -KJV "FearH2342 beforeH4480 H6440 him, allH3605 the earth:H776 the worldH8398 alsoH637 shall be stable,H3559 that it be notH1077 moved.H4131" - KJV w/Strong's Strong's "Earth":So 1Chr 16:30 can mean the earth can't be moved. And if so science has proven that wrong. And that's the verse -- or a verse -- you are asking for bro ZNP, that science has proven wrong. However, that can be debated. And one form of defeating the debate is to call it a name, like sloppy. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
2And when David had made an end of offering the burnt offerings and the peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord. This is what 1Chron 16 is about. The ark of God, being set in the tent that David pitched for it. 7Then on that day David delivered first this psalm to thank the Lord into the hand of Asaph and his brethren. 8Give thanks unto the Lord, call upon his name, make known his deeds among the people. Once again, the context of this first psalm of David is the setting up of the tabernacle in the tent that David pitched. 23Sing unto the Lord, all the earth; shew forth from day to day his salvation. 24Declare his glory among the heathen; his marvellous works among all nations. Sing unto the Lord, all the earth refers clearly to all people. Maybe you could include animals as well. It is akin to the angels singing joy to the world when Jesus was incarnated. 30Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved. 31Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice: and let men say among the nations, The Lord reigneth. If you read this verse in context it is clearly talking about Israel’s history from the time they came to the good land to the time that the kingdom was being established even though all the nations were fighting against them, to the time that the ark was set up in the tent David pitched. Fear before him, all the Earth and sing unto the Lord, all the earth. Clearly is referring to all people as God’s creation. The world shall be stable refers to human civilization with Israel at the center, and with the tabernacle at the center of Israel. There is no basis for debate, other than people looking for something they can debate about. To use this verse to say that Bible teaches that the Earth is not revolving around the sun or rotating on its axis is completely absurd. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
This should be a very easy request. The Bible was written 4,000 years ago by men who certainly were not aware of modern science and didn't have that view. Yet the Bible talks about God's creation, the Earth, the Heavens, etc. Surely it must be very easy to find these erroneous human concepts that have since been disproven by modern science in the text of the Bible.
Put any other work under the kind of analysis and scrutiny that the Bible has been put under and the errors will become obvious immediately. Surely you have something. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
I am interested in a verse that is debunked by Science and would view it as a treasure. But all you have given me is straw and dust. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The only basis you have for these assumptions concerning the Bible is, inspiration and revelation, which can't be proven scientifically ; neither does it add, up except for by faith, not by scientific conviction. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
I have no idea what the Bible writers thought, only what they wrote. They may have thought the earth was flat, but they didn't write that. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
In Genesis, the earth is created (1.1) before sun and stars (1.16). How is that possible, given scientific evidence that the earth came from the sun? Again, the Bible is wrong according to science. According to Genesis, birds and whales (1.21) were created before reptiles and insects (1.24). The fossil record shows just the opposite. Science shows the Bible is wrong again. According to Genesis, flowering plants (1.11) are created before animals (1.20), whereas again, the fossil record shows the opposite. Again the evidence contradicts the Bible. In each case above, the order of events in Genesis is the opposite of what has been found via scientific observation. Your claim that not a "single [Bible] verse... has...been disproven by science" is shown to be wrong by comparing the first chapter of the Bible with scientific findings. And we're just comparing the FIRST CHAPTER! Shall we go through the whole book and look at everything that is wrong according to science? How much time do you have? :nono: |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
In the beginning God created the heavens (1st) and the Earth (2nd). Then there is a very big gap, as you have so correctly indicated it must have been for at least 8 billion years, maybe even 12 billion. Then there was "darkness over the face of the deep" -- so already the ocean has formed. When the restoration begins. Since the Earth was here, and there was "darkness over the face of the deep" it is reasonable to understand that the Sun and the solar system is also here. No, something happened to cause "darkness". It could have been a super volcano, it could have been a very massive meteorite, but the first thing in the restoration is to clear the air of the dust, to let there be light. If you have ever seen the sky after a large volcanic eruption you cannot tell between day and night. Once the sky is clear, then you can see night and day again. You are correct in saying that the order given in Genesis 1 is not the order in which these things were created, but it isn't a record of the creation, it is a record of restoration after a cataclysmic event that caused the earth to be waste and void. If you study Geology, which you are claiming contradicts the Bible, then you know there have been 5 major extinction events in Earth's history. Genesis 1 is the record of the restoration taking place after the last major extinction event, or after a minor one like an ice age. The record sounds to me like an ice sheet retreating. As the ice melts the water would be gathered to the sea or to the clouds, then when the ground appears the first thing you would expect to see would be grass. In the record of creation grass is one of the last things to come along, but as an ice sheet retreats it would be the first. The Bible is not primarily a record of God's creation, it is the story of man. References to God's creation are always made in relation to man and at most sets the context for man. You assume they are giving a record of God's creation of all the creatures, but that is not a fair reading of the Bible. The science has not disproved Genesis 1, only it has disproved the interpretation that the account of the 7 days is about the creation of the heavens and the earth. You have not disproved a single verse, you have disproved an interpretation. The key point of Genesis 1 is that there are periodic extinction events, like Noah's flood, like Armageddon, like whatever happened that caused the Earth to be waste and void. This is a key thread that runs throughout the Bible. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
the dinosaur gap
If the author of Genesis purposefully left a "gap" between verses 1 and 2, then surely he must have also known about the creatures that existed during the gap?
Yet there is not one allusion in Genesis (nor in the entire Bible) to the existence of pre-Adamic creations. During the entire course of human observations during the 4000 yrs or so covered by the Bible, why no mention of the dinosaurs? Surely at least one of these 'inspired' writers would have thought to comment on the significance of these prehistoric creatures and how this was all part of God's plan? The simple answer is they did not have the science to date any fossilized remains they may have discovered. Instead, dragons and other such creatures were invented to explain the finds, and always placed within the context of human existence. ============================== Let’s imagine a scenario where ancient Hebrews discovered the fossil remains of a prehistoric dinosaur: “Look at the size of this creature! Too bad we did not find this before the hyenas ate its flesh!” “Could it be a Leviathan?” “I don’t think so… Leviathans are known to have many heads. And what creature could have crushed its skull?” “Wait a minute guys… Remember that not too far from here Ohiel found a crushed skull with no body?” “Yes! The hyenas must have drug that head from here! This has to be Leviathan! What else could it be?” “But how did a Leviathan’s body end up here so many cubits from the ocean? What say you, Timothiel?” “The explanation is simple. Only God could have lifted a creature this size from the ocean, killed it, and dumped it here. Why? To feed the hyenas, of course.” “You are most wise, Timothiel. Let’s go with that.” “Thank you, Asaph. And may I say you are a great song writer” (Psa 74:13-14 NAS) |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
In defense of the Israelites science, it could be true that they knew the value of Pi to more accuracy than any other people at the time:
https://www.math.rutgers.edu/~cherli...00/wilson.html Chronologically, the next approximation of pi is found in the Old Testament. A fairly well known verse, 1 Kings 7:23, says: "Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about" (Blatner, 13). This implies that pi = 3. Debates have raged on for centuries about this verse. According to some it was just a simple approximation, while others say that "... the diameter perhaps was measured from outside, while the circumference was measured from inside" (Tsaban, 76). However, most mathematicians and scientists neglect a far more accurate approximation for pi that lies deep within the mathematical "code" of the Hebrew language. In Hebrew, each letter equals a certain number, and a word's "value" is equal to the sum of its letters. Interestingly enough, in 1 Kings 7:23, the word "line" is written Kuf Vov Heh, but the Heh does not need to be there, and is not pronounced. With the extra letter , the word has a value of 111, but without it, the value is 106. (Kuf=100, Vov=6, Heh=5). The ratio of pi to 3 is very close to the ratio of 111 to 106. In other words, pi/3 = 111/106 approximately; solving for pi, we find pi = 3.1415094... (Tsaban, 78). This figure is far more accurate than any other value that had been calculated up to that point, and would hold the record for the greatest number of correct digits for several hundred years afterwards. Unfortunately, this little mathematical gem is practically a secret, as compared to the better known pi = 3 approximation. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
What is comical is that you are judging the Bible because it isn't written like a math textbook?!:crazy: |
Re: the dinosaur gap
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Such it was with Lee and LSM for all those years -- get the details right and miss the goal. Which brings us to is the real reason why LSM had to excommunicate Titus Chu and the GLA several years ago -- they knew that he would come to Anaheim and drain the swamp. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
All those years in engineering and I never realized that space exploration required more precision than bronze age castings. :rollingeyesfrown: Since when has the Bible become a science and mathematics textbook? |
Re: the dinosaur gap
Quote:
I would rather accept as fact that the book was not written entirely by inspiration. |
Re: the dinosaur gap
Quote:
So the assumption of Bible inerrantists is that God knew eventually it would be discovered that the earth is older than 6000 yrs old, like James Ussher wrongly calculated, and so hid a gap in between verse 1 and 2 of the Bible (knowing Genesis would wrongly be placed as the first book of the Bible - He knows everything), and that eventually the Bible worshipers in the 16th to 19th centuries would consider their idol (the Bible) would be proven wrong by science, and would need "the gap" to keep science from slandering the Bible, their real object of worship. But really, the "gap" is just seeing things in the Bible that aren't there, and is a hallucination, brought on by getting blindsided by science. Addicts will do or say anything to keep their addiction going and fed, and so it is with Bible addicts, who concocted this gap in Genesis. |
Re: the dinosaur gap
Quote:
But today we can see that. "One form of defeating a debate is calling it a name" (Awareness), like hallucination or Bible addicts. |
Re: the dinosaur gap
Quote:
|
Re: the dinosaur gap
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Why only one gap? Why not two gaps, maybe there is a double gap? The gap theory says it took God at least 1 try to get it right. One process of creation and then destruction of the evil. Then humans. Maybe between verse 1 and 2 of Genesis God created and destroyed the Earth 2,3 or even 10 times in His attempt to subdue the Earth and defeat Satan. Eventually, after the 10th try, he decided a better approach would be to send His Son to die for us, so he would not have to create and destroy the earth over and over.
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Time to introduce my New Years Resolution. . |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Ohio, the Bible says it was round, not "round enough" or approximately round. You cannot make a round object with a diameter 10 and circumference 30 to 1 significant digits. It would have to be circumference 31 cubits. When you make an object, and decide to use 1 significant digits , the value of Pi does not suddenly change to suit your preference. The value of Pi will always be the true value of 3.14....., because Pi is not a measurement or something you can change. So your round object will either not be round, or the diameter or circumference will be out by a whole cubit. Because the equation does not add up, the bible is inaccurate (or imprecise) in its language, or its figures.
What you don't seem to get is that the Bible is describing a real object and it is impossible to have a round thing with diameter 10 and circumference 30. If it helps your understanding there are website that let you calculate the circumference of a circle like this one: http://www.mathgoodies.com/calculato...alculator.html If you put a radius of 5 in there the answer it gives is 31.41592653589793. So the Bible answer is out by 1.4159 cubits or 2 feet approximately. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
I diameter of 9.7 would give a circumference of 30.47, which round off to 10 and 30, respectively.
Holding the number 10 as absolute is unfair math. 10 +/- 0.5 gives a range of 29.85 to 32.99 for circumference. Which of course includes 30. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The argument that it is a rounded number or an approximation does not hold because 1 Kings goes into great detail, as a true record. 1 Kings does not describe things in a vague way but reports what and how it looked in accurate detail. The vessel described was just as holy as any other article in the temple. So there is no reason for us to believe that the numbers 10 and 30 are not accurate. If the Bible has been proven to be more accurate than any other ancient book and if the Bible is reliable and accurate in every respect, then if the bible says 10 and 30 it means 10 and 30. Not 9.7 and 30.47. If the bible says 10 and 30 then "God said it, I believe it, that settles it". The bible says the value of Pi is 3. Who are we to doubt God's Word? God can easily modify the value of Pi if He wanted to, as He is the true Mathematician. Consider the implications of a view that numbers in the Bible are approximations or rounded. It also casts doubt on the rest of the Bible - Noah was not in the ark 40 days and 40 nights but perhaps it was 39 or 41. Then Jesus perhaps did not rise on the 3rd day, but the 3.5th day or the 2.7th day. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
That is only 1.5 days at most, which rounds up to 2, not 3. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
I have considered the implications of condemning the Bible for not being a math textbook, the implication is that I would look like a complete and utter fool, so I am not going to do it. I have considered the implication of trying to say that the use of the numbers 10 and 30 have on Jesus not being in the grave for 3 days or on Noah, and the implication is that I would lose all credibility and be viewed as a complete and total fool, so I am not going to do it. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
40 for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Mat 12:40 NAS)You cannot count three nights, even using your way of counting the days. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Blaming science for revealing facts? Thats amazing. Religion is the only one pitting fact(evolution) against fantasy here. If it is required to tell a false narrative to believe God...no wonder so many walk away.
A big part of what eventually turned me away from Christianity was creationist stories. Utterly falsified, quotes taken out of context...as we have seen in this thread. As with the Lord's recovery and Campus work...it was misleading. If people have to go to those lengths to defend God....that to me suggests he very well may not exist. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The theory of heredity that Darwin subscribed to has since been proven to be erroneous. Today we accept Mendelian heredity. Kelvin estimated the age of the earth using physics and came up with an age one fiftieth that we now accept, oops. Pauling’s triple helix proposal for the structure of DNA, oops. Prior to the Big Bang theory scientists subscribed to the steady state theory in which material was steadily created to match the expansion. The term “Big Bang” was derisive. Einstein proposed a “cosmological constant” to support this theory of a static universe or steady state universe. It was pure fabrication and something that Einstein was embarrassed about for his entire life. Harvard researcher John Darsee was found to be faking data in a heart study. Eventually investigators at the National Institutes of Health discovered that data for most of his 100 published studies had been fabricated. Cardiac-radiology specialist Robert Slutsky resigned from the University of California at San Diego School of Medicine after colleagues began to wonder how he turned out a new research article every 10 days. University investigators concluded he had altered data and lied about the methods he used. Perhaps you have heard of the Piltdown man, or even the Piltdown chicken. Oops. You might remember the Yale scientists report that a woman over 35 has less than a 5% chance of getting married, and if she is over 40 she is more likely to be killed by a terrorist. Oh yeah, how did you put it, "utterly falsified quotes". Or how about Pons and Fleischman discovery of cold fusion in 1989. You might not remember but they solved the world’s energy problems back then, too bad no one else has been able to reproduce their results. Or, if we are talking about scientific “oops” how about Chernobyl? Or you might have heard of “killer bees” in the South West of the US. Another “oops” by the scientists. In 1998 the NY Times reported that an asteroid the size of the one that wiped out the dinosaurs would pass within 30,000 miles of the US, that is terrifyingly close. As it turns out it will pass 600,000 miles away. Oops. Or you might remember Y2K |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The root issue is that it is not sufficient for one's faith to believe in Jesus Christ, you are expected to believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God as part of your faith. Many people have been turned away by this assertion. I wish I could quote the stats. I personally think that asserting that the text is 100% inspired is one of the greatest evils man has invented. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
The theory of heredity that Darwin subscribed to has since been proven to be erroneous. Today we accept Mendelian heredity.
----------------------- You haven't really read any of Darwins work have you? Darwin had no idea how animals passed on traits, only that they did. Mendels law of independent assortment and eventually our understanding of genetics(few genes follow simple Mendelian patterns) actually provides evidence that only strengthens evolutionary theory. -------------------- Kelvin estimated the age of the earth using physics and came up with an age one fiftieth that we now accept, oops. Pauling’s triple helix proposal for the structure of DNA, oops. ---------------- And how do we know....Science! This is how science works. Darwin supposed domestic dogs may have been bred from twi wild canines. He'd be delighted to know we now know(thanks genetics) that all dog breeds came from wolves. -------------- Prior to the Big Bang theory scientists subscribed to the steady state theory in which material was steadily created to match the expansion. The term “Big Bang” was derisive. Einstein proposed a “cosmological constant” to support this theory of a static universe or steady state universe. It was pure fabrication and something that Einstein was embarrassed about for his entire life. ----------------- How does this relate to evolution? It is a decent demo of the scientific process... ---------------- Harvard researcher John Darsee was found to be faking data in a heart study. Eventually investigators at the National Institutes of Health discovered that data for most of his 100 published studies had been fabricated. Cardiac-radiology specialist Robert Slutsky resigned from the University of California at San Diego School of Medicine after colleagues began to wonder how he turned out a new research article every 10 days. University investigators concluded he had altered data and lied about the methods he used. --------------- Scientists love finding fraud and weaknesses in evidence. Do you think those investigators lost faith in the science as a way to actually understand the world? Fat chance. ------------- Perhaps you have heard of the Piltdown man, or even the Piltdown chicken. Oops. ------------- Yes. I have. A collector built this thing to try to make a name for himself. Scientists debunked it and it was quickly tossed aside and forgotten. It has been brought up multiple times in this very thread as people think for some reason it debunks evolution. Btw it was a pig jawbone...you need to keep your facts straight. -------------- You might remember the Yale scientists report that a woman over 35 has less than a 5% chance of getting married, and if she is over 40 she is more likely to be killed by a terrorist. Oh yeah, how did you put it, "utterly falsified quotes. ------------------ I don't have to go further than this thread/post to find false stuff from creationists. --------------- Or how about Pons and Fleischman discovery of cold fusion in 1989. You might not remember but they solved the world’s energy problems back then, too bad no one else has been able to reproduce results. ----------------- Sounds like science at work. --------- Or, if we are talking about scientific “oops” how about Chernobyl? ------- The issue of use of technology is on grounds of ethics and morality. Science can inform on risk of exposure to radiation...but leaves you to judge what to do with this info. It is clear you don't understand the nature of science. ---------------- Or you might have heard of “killer bees” in the South West of the US. Another “oops” by the scientist. ---------------- Warwick Kerr is actually credited with saving Brazil's honey industry. Unfortunately the Africanized bees did not lose their defensiveness, but Kerr was correct that they would be a better honeybee for Brazilian honey production. It actually was a visiting beekeeper who released the bees. But again, this is a policy issue. ---------------- In 1998 the NY Times reported that an asteroid the size of the one that wiped out the dinosaurs would pass within 30,000 miles of the US, that is terrifyingly close. As it turns out it will pass 600,000 miles away. ------------------ That is a hell lot closer a prediction than 7 days is to sone 7billion years. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
In short, none of that disproves evolution, and it seems like you at the least have research to do. (Not creationism as that has all been handily addressed below).
I will give you benefit of doubt that you did not purposefully bring incorrect info on evolution in the first paragraph purposefully. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
God made man from the dust of the ground That is evolution in a nutshell. Look at dust under a microscope, that is what we were made of. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
[QUOTE=Intothewind;54909]
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The above story is amazingly common, but let's make this a little more hypothetical. Suppose this man died at 11:55pm and was resuscitated at 21:03am. Now when this one tells his story he has documented proof that he was dead for "two days". Anyone have a problem with this man referring to the two days he was dead? The bottom line is that although they were technically dead for five minutes every one has a death certificate which tells you the "day they died", a few may even have evidence they were dead for two days. But it was just five minutes. However, there is no way to be dead for 3 days without being dead for more than 24 hours. Big difference. So instead of telling the 500 million or so Christians who refer to Jesus death as 3 days you need to go around to all of these dinner parties and tell these people "you cannot count one day" or for that odd person "you cannot count two days". Do that and I will ignore the hypocrisy. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
I corrected the post Z. But if you are having trouble picking out your text from mine-its pretty clear you don't understand the topic.
It seems like it is a good time to repost this from below when Igzy tried to twist things around to explain away evolution. http://www.godofevolution.com/the-to...lution-at-all/ Here is a Christian who would be pretty upset with you. This blog post is factually accurate. I will leave the judgement on religion to you. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Now some of these scientists merely had an incorrect hypothesis which was later corrected. Some made very clear errors in their process, but it wasn't intentionally misleading. Still others were complete frauds. How is that any different from the worst of your Bible expositors? What a hypocrite, you completely shrug off these errors by scientists, yet if a Bible expositor were to do one of these then this is justification to condemn God, the Bible, and all that goes with it. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
I covered this topic at length on my "Timotheist Exposed" blog. I did my own research and now agree with a minority of others that the author of Mark got the days wrong. He wrongfully associated the Last Supper with Passover. This goes against the narrative of John, in which Christ was crucified as Passover was beginning. John says the next day was a special Sabbath, which is Passover itself. Passover in the Jewish calendar could occur on any day of the week. John's narrative would allow for a full three days and nights in the grave, IF we knew what year these events occurred. Mark and John cannot be both true. One narrative must be in error. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
A weird thought - if we subscribe to the gap theory then this dust that humans were made of in the "reformed Earth" is the bodies of the pre-Adamic race and dinosaurs. I never thought of that before. Did God make man from old dust or new dust? Interesting question. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Zpanaah: nope, not at all hypocritical.
Imagine a scientist predicts that ice will sink in water...since most solids are denser than the liquid form of the same substance. He would be denounced a fool if after putting ice in water he insisted that ice still sinks. No, he would move along, and probably try to figure out why ice floats. Religion, in contrast, often wants facts to just dissapear...or be bent to fit biblical narrative. Again scientists uncovered the hoaxes. We have already had oodles of inaccuracies(lies) purposefully spun to uphold something in the faith in this one thread. This seems to be the norm in religion. Not actually interested in knowing the truth. I already gave a link that mentions that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. And yes, we have a good idea at this point as to how life came to be. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
On the other hand this is precisely what the cigarette industry did, using science. This is precisely what the hydrocarbon industry has done concerning climate change, using scientists. This is precisely what the pharmaceutical industry has done by mass marketing heroin and meth. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
So let me get this straight, Jesus just wanted facts to disappear? You didn't say always, you said often, so maybe it was just Paul or Peter? Which NT writer "purposefully spun to uphold something"?
------------------------------------------------------------ I cannot talk to the writers of the NT(or OT, why were they left out?) , but I can talk to plenty of readers. We can't talk to the writers and ask if they believed the flood actually happened-or if it was some kind of tall children's tale/fable. Some people really want the evidence to show that the whole Noah flood thing happened-like water over the entire earth. These people are easily duped by places like the Creation museum...That is what I have a problem with. On the other hand this is precisely what the cigarette industry did, using science. ----------- Not really. Who figured out that cigarettes were causing cancer? Medical researchers(scientists). tobacco companies tried to twist the agenda around, perhaps even convinced people to put out bad science, but cold hard evidence shows otherwise. This is precisely what the hydrocarbon industry has done concerning climate change, using scientists. -------------------------------- Ah, now we have an example of lobbyist of the fossil fuel industry changing the narrative on climate change(basically-the facts point towards rising CO2 levels caused by human activity). The scientific data taken by multiple agencies shows that climate change is happening. How are we uncovering the truth? We are testing for it using science. This is precisely what the pharmaceutical industry has done by mass marketing heroin and meth. -------------------------------- It is important to look at the origin of studies, and whether others are able to repeat such studies. It is also important to be able to interpret the results and translate them to policy. Science can let us know what meth and heroin do to people, but Science cannot tell you whether it is a good idea to take it. If religion is willing to look critically at what it teaches to see if it matches up with the evidence-that is great. But so far in this thread religion seems unwilling to do so. Earlier in this thread you wrote that their is not a single Bible verse that has not been disproven by science. That is patently false. Their are multiple scientific inaccuracies in the Bible. Bats are referred to as birds in the Old Testament, for example. If taken literally, the account of creation in Genesis must be completely tossed aside. If these are honest mistakes, then you would have to admit to that, and realize that the Bible can be wrong on things science. Does that make the Bible any less useful of a book? Depends on what you are using it for. It is a horrible book for understanding the natural world. And if people frequently lie or put there heads in the sand so it makes sense-that tells me it might not be a good book for other things, either. That is how you drive people away from religion. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Archaelogists have determined that the black sea was not always a sea, at the bottom of this sea there is an ancient civilization, it was destroyed by flood when the Bosphirous broke through the thin rocky barrier. Hence the name "Black sea". |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The point is for every idiot or evil Bible expositor there is an equally moronic or evil scientist. You aren't blaming creation for the evil scientist, why are you blaming the Bible for the evil Bible expositor? |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The reason it has taken this long to "uncover" the truth is the willful disinformation campaign that has been waged by unethical scientists. Why are you trying to cover for them, it is a well known fact that science is used to pass off lies from corporate america, this was proven in a number of studies. One very simple technique is to fund 20 studies. Then you publish the one study that comes closest to supporting your narrative. By not publishing the other 19 you create a false narrative. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Oxycontin and Ridlin are merely Pharma names for Heroin and Meth, the drug companies know that highly addictive means highly profitable. Just ask the cigarette companies, the judgement against them was that they were ruled to be a drug company. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Zpanaah: You can go ahead and look at the wikipedia page for "flood geology"....flood geology is creationism's best friend. It even defines flood geology as "trying to reconcile geological features of the earth with a literal belief in global flood." That is exactly how NOT to understand more about the world!
Shred legends are no proof that a flood happened. There is evidence of regional floods, but there is no evidence that the whole world was flooded at the same time...we would find deposits suggesting this if so. This is indefensible. In Leviticus Ch11, the list of unclean animals. Insects do not have four legs. hares do not chew cud. Mustard seed is not the smallest seed. Stars are not little objects in heaven that can fall to earth. The whole of the Genesis account. Even with the gap...the Sun and stars were created after the earth. Nope. Mankind began in the Middle East. No. That entire chapter simply needs to be tossed. In Genesis, Jacob manages to alter the colors of his livestock with peeled branches placed on the ground while the livestock are mating. This flies in the face of modern genetics. Since Jacob is striving to better himself the context suggests that God is not performing a miracle here. There you go. Verses in the Bible that are not accurate. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
This is what makes me angry, you aren't being genuine. You claim that "Science" has disproven this. Baloney. What you really mean is that we now have two different terms: ruminant and refection. But so what, the Bible wasn't using either, neither is it a scientific textbook on the anatomy of Hares, it is simply telling people what they can and cannot eat and why. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
21Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; 22Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. Look at the picture, it is an anatomically correct description of a locust, a bald locust and the grasshopper. The only issue you could have is with "beetle". So then, let's look at the orthodox Jewish Bible: 22 Even these of them ye may eat: the arbeh (locust) after its kind, and the katydid after its kind, and the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind. Oops, bad translation. This is the most moronic complaint. It is arguments like this that explain why I have no respect for atheist and those that argue the Bible has been disproved by science. What idiotic drivel. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
OK, let's see who is right. You say that Mustard seed was not less than the least of all seeds sown upon the earth at that time. Great, what seed was sown by farmers at the time Jesus was speaking which is smaller? If you cannot answer this then you are deceitful or just an ignorant fool wasting everyone's time. Go ahead, you are the one claiming to be so scientifically accurate, what seed was sown on the earth at the time Jesus was speaking that was less or smaller than the mustard seed? |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The Bible does not say that stars are "little objects" nor does it say they fall to earth. And yes, they do "fall from heaven" that is called a supernova. Once again you have proven yourself to be a deceitful worker who does not handle the word right. You misquote and intentionally attempt to deceive. You need to repent. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
One way the Earth becomes waste and void is by massive dust in the atmosphere that can take place after a super volcano or after a meteorite strike. Either way the Sun and stars would be blocked and you would not be able to distinguish day and night. Genesis 1 is the record of how God restores a fallen situation. But after the last few attempts by you to discredit the Bible you have 0 credibility and have demonstrated that you have a deceitful agenda. As for mankind beginning in the Middle East it is very clear from the record, even to an elementary school kid, that there must have been other people besides Adam and Eve. As a result what makes Adam the first man is his ability to communicate with God. Now I am not aware of a written language that predates the Sumerian language, but apparently you are. So go ahead, enlighten us, what written language predates the Sumerian language? Should be simple for someone more scientifically advanced than the Bible. The Bible is one of the oldest books on Earth. It is written by men who communicated with God and perhaps Adam was the first such man. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
But, it's understandable. After all you, Pember, Nee and Lee know more about how God created the universe than the writer of Exodus. The author of Exodus actually thought that God made the heavens and the earth in six days! He totally missed the fact that after God created everything billions years of waste and void elapsed before God RESTORED everything in SIX DAYS. What an ignoramus! Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
|
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Exodus says "made the heavens and the earth" which matches what ZNP has stated. This was not created ex nihilo. God made the heavens corresponds to making the atmosphere above, and making the earth refers to the six day development of the earth and life on it. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
The point being God worked for 6 days, like us, and then takes a rest. Since the act of creation could not possibly take 6 days (where did days come from if not from creation?) and the Bible is very clear that there is "one creation", not six, not a million, just one. therefore Ex 20 obviously supports this gap interpretation. As for Zeek, I am not "biased", I have asked for verses and this is the first time anyone brought up Exodus 20. This also supports my assertion that "God made man from the dust of the ground" refers to the process of evolution. Yes, God spoke not being as being, yes there was an instant in which the creation took place, after which we have time (remember "time will be no more", hence it is part of the creation). But that was not the end, after that God "made", "He worked for six days" like us. This process could have taken billions of years, what is that to God? |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
37 And Jacob took him rods of fresh [o]poplar, and of the almond and of the plane-tree; and peeled white streaks in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. 38 And he set the rods which he had peeled over against the flocks in the gutters in the watering-troughs where the flocks came to drink; and they conceived when they came to drink. 39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and the flocks brought forth ringstreaked, speckled, and spotted. 40 And Jacob separated the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstreaked and all the black in the flock of Laban: and he put his own droves apart, and put them not unto Laban’s flock. 41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger of the flock did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the flock in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods; 42 but when the flock were feeble, he put them not in: so the feebler were Laban’s, and the stronger Jacob’s. Try reading it again, the deal is Jacob gets all the ones of mixed color (ringstraked, spotted, etc). He is controlling who is mating with who, hence "when the flock were feeble he put them not in". He has created a pen where he controls who mates with who and as a result all of the lambs come out ringstraked and spotted. And he heard the words of Laban’s sons, saying, Jacob hath taken away all that was our father’s; and of that which was our father’s hath he gotten all this [a]glory. All of the lambs that came out now belonged to Jacob. 7 And your father hath deceived me, and changed my wages ten times; but God suffered him not to hurt me. 8 If he said thus, The speckled shall be thy wages; then all the flock bare speckled: and if he said thus, The ringstreaked shall be thy wages; then bare all the flock ringstreaked. 9 Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me. Jacob claims it was God's miracle, but the Bible records that the real reason was that Jacob set up pens and controlled which sheep mated with which ones. |
Re: Bible Versus Science
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:57 AM. |
3.8.9