Where Science And The Bible Meet

Anaxagoras knew that the moon shone by reflected light in the 5th century BC. He also described the sun as being "larger than the Peloponnese".No-one ever claimed that the sun was one meter across, you made that up. Nor does the Bible give an accurate figure for the size of the sun, so I don't really see why you raise the issue.The statement in the Bible about the sun and moon dimming is consistent with the authors knowing what had been discovered several centuries previously, but hardly proves it. You write: But the words "as a result" are your gloss on the text; they do not appear in the Bible.As has been pointed out, the next bit of Matthew 24:29 proves that the author didn't know what a star is or how gravity works. Hence, the passage cannot be divinely inspired, because God would know these things.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

In the same way, the Qur'aan has some points that can be scientifically backed up. It says that the sun exists, and look, the sun does exist. Bully for Muhammad. And any point on which the Qur'aan disagrees with science? Well then, Allah performed a miracle. Bully for Allah. You say your faith is "100%", but do you really have as much faith in your God as the 9/11 bombers had in theirs? Ah, Christian love.Not even Pontius Pilate washed his hands so fast.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : WarningEdited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But why speak unscientifically?Stars are bigger than the Earth, they're very hot, if just one came near us the Earth would fall into the star, 'cos that's how gravity works, and we'd melt and evaporate before we even hit. Whereas instead he gave them the plain, simple message that stars were going to fall out of the sky. Which is nice and straightforward to understand and, let's face it, it's not going to happen.

Well that's not true either. To take an example more or less at random, Francis Crick and James Watson, who discovered the structure of DNA, are both outspoken atheists, not Christians. Or does "Modern Science" exclude molecular genetics?Do Einstein's discoveries count as "Modern Science"? Einstein, who wrote: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."I could go on ...Moreove, if we restrict "modern" to meaning within the last hundred years or so, then whatever proportion of "Modern Science" has been contributed by Christians, even those who did profess the Christian religion have also been overwhelmingly of the opinion that Creationism is completely batshit crazy.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.