Do atoms confirm or refute the bible?

Could we have some elaboration? Before more derogatory people than I shut your statement down?

Certainly:Physics explains how chaotic energy evolves into increasingly complex stable forms, such as quarks and electrons, atoms and molecules. Chemistry explains how molecules arrange themselves into self-replicating cells. Biology explains how cells associate within reproducing multi-celled forms. Psychology explains how multi-celled forms associate into herds and tribes. Sociology explains how communities develop common world-views and resist any threat to their view. Perhaps there is a God, who knows?PS I appreciate your restraint - I'm not terribly thick-skinned.

Haha, it's all good mate It was just your very first statement:

quote:

---

Science can't touch the beginning of time as it was too hot for relativity to handle

---

That I did not fully understand, yet feared that it would experience some major rebuttal. I didn't restrain anything; I had nothing to say as I wasn't sure I understood what it was you were trying to say. So I thought I should ask for some elaboration.I'm still not fully understanding how Science has become (an alternate?) reason for your father to believe the Bible...

quote:

---

PS I appreciate your restraint - I'm not terribly thick-skinned.

---

You're welcome, but there was never going to be a shut down typed from my fingers . I was waiting for certain others within this forum who perhaps, like I, did not understand your point, to misinterpret and rebutt accordingly.

Thanks - I though I was in for a rough ride there for a moment. Science isn't the reason the old man believes, but it offers (to me) an alternative explanation. Just to be clear: Perhaps his beliefs are correct, but either way, the reason why he believes what he believes may be merely because his parents/culture believed it before him. I grew up with these beliefs too, but I'm more of an evolutionist these days, which may explain why my kids are more evolutionist than religious - although this could change in later life. Who knows - I could go back to religion one day - I know a vicar who went through an athiest phase for a few years. I really don't think I'll ever be sure either way. Whatever one believes, there are more people to disagree with you than agree. Maybe one day there will be a global majority world view - I kind of hope not.All the best

Just remember, there is no dichotomy between accepting the TOE and being religious, even Christian. For many of us it is pretty obvious that evolution is how goddunnit.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes indeed, too often people confuse the following issues:Christianity vs. AtheismCreation vs. EvolutionThere is a distinct difference between the two. And you can believe in (any) one of each, and ave evidence supporting your view.Just as you can believe in the theory of evolutin and be christian, you can disbelieve in God and believe in creation. It simply suggests you support the 'Intelligent Design' notion.As for me, the top issue is clear to me, I certainly believe in God; yet I am fuzzy as to which 'Origin of Life' theory I believe in...Actually, it is the reaosn I sought for a forum such as this, and now participate within it

It's even more complex than that. I am a Christian Creationist who accepts that the TOE is the best explanation for the diversity of life we see.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ahh, fair enough.So you believe that God did create the Earth (in the way the Genesis describes it?), and then the diversity of life was the product of evolution?That, essentially, is what I believe. But, I am not as learned as you, and so my view is a bit fuzzled, not having seen much of the evidence available. And so, I couldn't say that I have come to a legitimate conclusion about itI would very much like to have a conversation with you regarding this, if you had the time?Edited by Centrus, : No reason given.

No, of course not. The various Genesis creation myths are just that. They are lessons to be learned, but certainly not scientific descriptions of what happened.Glad to discuss it in this thread if we can stay on topic or in another.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hmm, I think we will stray a bit if we continue it here...I'll start a new one concerning this another time, as at the moment I have a bit of homework that needs to get done by then :SBut thanks very much for your input and willingness

Good idea. For some background you might want to look at A Catechism of Creation: An Episcopal Understanding

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

There is some scripture somewhere in the Bible about "all things hold together" which some have attributed to the strong and week nuclear forces. I am thinking weak, myself, real weak.The larger question has there ever been a single revelation about the natural world that originated from the Bible or inspired reading of the Bible that preceded a scientific discovery?People claim God inspired the Bible. People claim about being inspired while reading the Bible. So I find it odd that no one has ever read the Bible and discovered some physical truth thru inspiration. Why is the god of the bible so quiet or ineffectual in explaining his own creation?This is another reason why I don't believe the bible is inspired or capable of inspiring.Now I will stand back and wait for the "who says the bible is a science text" crowd. I will take cover and chamber a round.Actually no the wife just called it is off to bed.Cool i just got post 42. I always wanted that, this is a good reason to sign off. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Thanks, jar, for that tip - "Just remember, there is no dichotomy between accepting the TOE and being religious, even Christian. For many of us it is pretty obvious that evolution is how goddunnit." - sorry I have yet to learn how to quote.I should say - I grew up believing in Genesis, but these days I find it hard to, because I see alternatives that were not available to me then. I suppose one could criticise the EvC idea for excluding all the third ways we could have got here, like Aborigine Dream Time in which life dreamt itself into existence. Why not!All the best

Well, I believe in the Bible and that includes Genesis. It is more a case of What Genesis is telling us than whether or not it is true.The authors of the different creation stories in Genesis (and there are signs that it is at least three different tales, maybe more) had multiple purposes. The two tales though, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, are completely different and frankly, the details in them are mutually exclusive.The editors and redactors sat down and decided to include both stories, to place them in the order we see today with the younger tale coming first and the older tale second, to leave them in their original form and not edit them to take out the contradictions. If we are honest, we have to ask "Why?"Why didn't the redactors and compilers smooth things out to remove inconsistencies and contradictions?First, because the two tales show two entirely different and complementary views of GOD. The God in Genesis 1 is overarching, transcendent, aloof and powerful beyond imagination. She simply creates by an act of will; "Let there be Light", and there was light.The God of Genesis 2 is quite different. The Genesis 2 God is far more personal, bumbling even, unsure, very hands on and personal. The Genesis 2 God is super-human, but something we can understand, relate directly with, communicate with.Each story also tries to explain the world we live in. It does that as well as can be expected for the time. The fact that the Bible gets some of the science wrong is no more important than the fact that every theory and scientific law we use today will likely be shown to have been wrong. That is how science works. As we learn more we realize that our understanding of the mechanics was incomplete.But the Bible is NOT about atoms, not about science. It is about mans relationship with GOD, GODs relationship with man, mans relationship with our fellow men and with the world we live in.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Scripture:
He is the image 7 of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16
For in him 8 were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and for him.
17
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.The scripture here wasn't talking about atoms. To stay in context, principalities has a meaning that political powers, and these political processes are held together in Him. This is to give comfort to the people he was speaking with, not to give a science lesson.It is always good to look at the motive of the text in the Bible, as well as the audience. Looking at it from a more accurate perspective gives "light bulb" meaning to the text.