Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does science disprove the Bible?
shiloh
Junior Member (Idle past 6115 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 06-21-2007


Message 13 of 310 (406970)
06-23-2007 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Taz
06-23-2007 2:23 AM


First, Noah was commanded to take 7 of each; that is male and female -prob. 14 tot. for one "kind" of clean animal and 4 - 8 tot. of unclean.(Gen.7:2-3). Furthermore, "kind" and modern day species do not necessarily belong in the same catagory. These numbers are fine for repopulation esp. with great genetic diversity within these early "kinds." Also, there would have been extra room on the ark for storage of food. There is also the issue of hybernation, and the fact that they may well have eaten one of the pairs. Although meat intake is relativly small comp. to herbavoirs and insectavoirs. Don't forget dried food as weel. This is not nearly exhaustive but lastly if you can get past Gen. 1:1 this should be no problem for God.
Two, The "problem" of light is not the only problem reguarding cosmology. There are many unresovled problem although not with theory's. One for the evolutionist is called the horizion problem. Nonetheless there are other models to explain this light problem, not to mention whether certain constants are not actually constant. To qoute a quick explanation of the horizion problem by David F. Coppedge: The Light-Distance Problem | The Institute for Creation Research
"According to the Big Bang theory, the universe expanded in all directions from its initial state of high density. In your mind's eye, follow a tiny region on its path; at no time would it come in contact with the particles going in a different direction. The universe would never have mixed; each part of space was beyond the "horizon" of each other part. Herein is the problem. The universe looks homogeneous and isotropic. This means all parts of space appear uniform at large scales. The temperature of the cosmic background radiation is uniform to within one part in 100,000. If no parts ever mixed, how could they achieve such striking uniformity of temperature?
The horizon problem is recognized as a serious difficulty by all secular cosmologists. It was part of the motivation behind an ad-hoc proposal in 1980 called inflation. In addition, the standard Big-Bang model is plagued by the lumpiness problem (matter is structured into stars and galaxies), the entropy problem (the initial "cosmic egg" would have had to start with a high degree of order), the ignition problem (no cause for the expansion), and other more recent difficulties, like the amazingly precise balance between the acceleration rate and density.
Critics of Biblical cosmology, in other words, have their own bundle of problems. Any serious discussion of the light-distance problem should begin with the recognition that it is an issue for all sides. Science is limited in fathoming such a complex subject as how the universe came to be. We have an Eyewitness that gave us enough information, corroborated by numerous other avenues of study, to justify putting our trust in His Word.
Third, reguarding points 3,4,and 6 - I think you need to pratice your literary skills a bit. Those are not ment to be scientific statements. For number six have you ever heard of hyperbole. My goodness is this it. Circle is quite sufficent for a sphere in ancient Hebrew. Also "He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7).
Fourth, for number 5 - are you saying no wind direction N to S or S to N occurs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Taz, posted 06-23-2007 2:23 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Taz, posted 06-23-2007 4:49 PM shiloh has replied
 Message 164 by Issabee, posted 07-08-2007 2:27 AM shiloh has not replied

shiloh
Junior Member (Idle past 6115 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 06-21-2007


Message 15 of 310 (406974)
06-23-2007 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Doddy
06-23-2007 5:00 AM


WS-JW - you need to practice your literary skills as well as T-Devil.
The Serpent is not an animal it is "The Satan" that is our Adversary.
The writer (Moses) wrote these words long after the events took place - do you think the people hearing these words or reading them understood it to be an aniaml (snake) NO, they understood it to be the Devil. (Rev. 20:1-2).
This being was more cunning than any beast of the field - thats anything that the LORD God had put on earth.
As far as the dust curse is concered do a word study on that and you see that it is refering to being brought low in humiliation not some literal choping off the legs of a snake - please. That is Satans ultimate destination - being humilated and rendered powerless by the The Seed of the woman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Doddy, posted 06-23-2007 5:00 AM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Doddy, posted 06-23-2007 6:12 AM shiloh has replied

shiloh
Junior Member (Idle past 6115 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 06-21-2007


Message 22 of 310 (407020)
06-23-2007 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Doddy
06-23-2007 6:12 AM


The term "literally" is such a loaded term. I take the bible literally in a historical, grammatical, and rhetorical meaning. Just because there are analogies, metaphors, ect does not mean it is not historical. I see no contradictions in the first few chapters of Genesis.
I think the literal meaning of the Serpent is the fact of a created being called Satan - not a snake. Thats taking it literal with a different meaning. It really comes down to understanding the historical and grammatical context of the Bible.
Just to point out when talking about the ~6000 yrs ago date - that could really be from the Fall not creation. The time periods come into play in ch. 5. You will notice a contrast in 5:1-3 in Adam being created in Gods image and then when he statrs to age (hence the fall) he starts to beget in his own likeness (fallen state). The time period between creation and fall is not known. Also Ch.5:1-2 (intro to a new history) talk about Mankind (day six) and then transitions to the individual person Adam. It does not say that Adam lived 130 yrs after he was created - that would imply aging from the start - but 130 since the fall and then he started to beget in his own image. This section begins the history after the fall.
Although I would not try to cram evolution into that period - that was an unfallen state.
Edited by shiloh, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Doddy, posted 06-23-2007 6:12 AM Doddy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 06-23-2007 1:40 PM shiloh has replied

shiloh
Junior Member (Idle past 6115 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 06-21-2007


Message 26 of 310 (407074)
06-23-2007 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Taz
06-23-2007 4:49 PM


1. The point about "kind" was to show that equating it with species as you did is erroneous and therefore does not help your point. Without getting into a detailed explanation I brought up the term "kind" to make the point that it represents a broader catagory than species therby reducing the numbers of animals on the Ark. I hope you realize that there are examples of hybridization even within the genus and some in the family category.
2. Hybernation was one small specific point that I brought up not a general answer for your so called problems.
3. For your points three and four - YES - and these have been answered sufficiently. Here is one book you can read which deals with these issues. "NOAH'S ARK: A Feasibility study" by John Woodmorappe ISBN 0-932766-41-2
4. By bringing up God I was not trying to relegate the answers to your points by just invoking God but only to say even if there were no answers or unanswered questions does not establish your points. Futhermore, why should we remove Gods hand in this event? If He does exist then surely as the Bible intimates He was in it. It is only for the purpose of trying to find some total materialistic explanation the requires us to do so and since I understand that this is your point this is why I stated it last.
5. Reguarding the 3 logical fallicies you should have read my post more carefully. None apply to this point because
A) I was not trying to dismiss nor answer the "problem of light" by pointing out the horizon problem. I simply acknowledged the problem and wanted to point out that both sides have problems of there own.
B) Since this issue is complex I just hinted at some possible points -Other models to account for the light problem, problems with dating, and issues reguarding binary star systems. The key to the past is not necessarily the present. Furthermore you just stated the problem you did not explain it. See: Humphreys, D. R., Starlight and Time, 1994, Master Books, Colorado Springs, Co. although not without its problems; neither are the Big Bang models. The main point is time dialation factors come into play within various models , these are real effects that have not been completely understod. For Christian contray oppinion see 404- Not Found
Also see, RATE | The Institute for Creation Research reguarding dating issues. Reguarding binary star issues Iam running late but here are two scientist with articles you can scan over ICR Research | The Institute for Creation Research and ICR Research | The Institute for Creation Research
Also, Starlight and the Age of the Universe | The Institute for Creation Research
404- Not Found (about the flood)
404- Not Found (about time-dialation)
404- Not Found (Mathematical philosohy and evolution)
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9903110 (another model for your reading pleasure)
So seems like both sides have there problems. That was my point. Just stateing somthing does not prove it nor not being able to give an answer.
6. I knew what you said about wind direction but what was the point if just "predominately" that does not help in saying the bible is in error at that verse. Why even use it as one of your points.
Have fun reading if you dare.
Edited by shiloh, : left out "not" in #6

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Taz, posted 06-23-2007 4:49 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by nator, posted 07-08-2007 10:27 AM shiloh has not replied

shiloh
Junior Member (Idle past 6115 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 06-21-2007


Message 27 of 310 (407078)
06-24-2007 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by jar
06-23-2007 1:40 PM


Re: Except of course ...
There may have been those who have tried to show that the bible is factually incorrect but you did not do so.
What are your reasons for no biblical support of the fall. This term is really not a specific theological term so I am might just agree with you - but what did happen to man after he sinned and what are the consequences according to the bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 06-23-2007 1:40 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 06-24-2007 12:37 AM shiloh has replied

shiloh
Junior Member (Idle past 6115 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 06-21-2007


Message 28 of 310 (407081)
06-24-2007 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Doddy
06-23-2007 7:33 PM


Man this is such an old supposed contradiction - heck it has probably been answered a million times.
There is no contradiction and the different versions can be reconciled in this way Judas hung himself (possibly on a tree branch over a ledge) and then later falling after a couple days of rot and hitting the ground a splitting open.
Matt. notes the first part; Luke (of course being a doctor) points out the guts point of view.
Alot of the "different accounts" fall into this category.
This is what is beautiful about the bible it does not try to "get together and corrobate for the sake of establishing a false story" but their are eyewitness acounts from individuals who tell there story without addressing every freakin deatail. There are often different accounts of the same event in court testomonies that are not necessarily contradictory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Doddy, posted 06-23-2007 7:33 PM Doddy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Chiroptera, posted 06-24-2007 9:52 AM shiloh has not replied

shiloh
Junior Member (Idle past 6115 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 06-21-2007


Message 30 of 310 (407091)
06-24-2007 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by jar
06-24-2007 12:37 AM


Re: Except of course ...
I thought you had reasons more substantial than these.
God gave Adam a command with the consequences of disobeying that command. Even if eating of the tree of knowledge was a step up it was at the expense of disobediance to the will of God and therefore had consequenses (The Fall or whatever term you want use). Adam and Eve intruded into a sphere God did not authorize them to do so. Since man is a contingent being mortality was the result - seperation from the immortal life of God - hence the need for a Savior - the seed of the Woman Jesus Christ.
As for the snake curse did you not read the earlier posts. Your take on this is funny.
As far as your other points those are unsubstantiated claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 06-24-2007 12:37 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 06-24-2007 1:43 AM shiloh has replied

shiloh
Junior Member (Idle past 6115 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 06-21-2007


Message 32 of 310 (407110)
06-24-2007 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by jar
06-24-2007 1:43 AM


Re: Except of course ...
How is my statement not supported in the bible; mortality = "you shall surely die"
I did not say he was seperated in a total sense from God but from the eternal life that is in God.
I never said they were put out of the garden for eating the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God was not afraid of them eating the tree of life - it was actually His grace towards them that restricted
this access - this tree represented that eternal life of God - hence lest they "live forever." Read Romans 5 (although I doubt you will grasp the significance; esp. verses 12-21.)
There is a clear chang from before Adams disobedience and afterwards. If concepts like deception, disobedience, curses, nakedness, death, murder, sin, ect in Ch. 3-4 dont convince you that man is in a different state than previously and that their relation to God was not changed in some way - not for the better - then I think your decieved. Why was there a need for this person Called the seed of the woman that would crush the head of the serpent.
As far as the snake goes the Bible was not trying to intimate that it was an animal called a snake but - the dragon that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan. Rev. 20:1-2. Since that is what it was trying say thats how I interpret it. Thats what it literally says not what you think it says.
I hope your not trying to argue over the semantics of the word seperation - come on! the concepts are clear from Scripture.
By the way sin is unbelief, rebellion, transgression, and pride - all found in the story - as well as you and everyone else.
See Is.591:2-3 "Behold the LORD's hand is not shortened that it cannot save; nor is His ear heavy that it cannot hear. But your iniquities have seperated you from your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear. for your hands are defiled with blood and your fingers with iniquity; your lips ahve spoken lies, your tongue has muttered perveristy."
The need for a Messiah and a blood sacrife are developed more precisly later in the book of genesis and throughout the OT. The idea that God would lovingly provide salvation in a just manner for sin is not stupid but gracious. You say you are a Christian - I have read your posts and you deny Christ and His sacrifice. Please dont take this term upon yourself if this is all stories with morals that are firmly planted in thin air - heck eat drink and be marry for tommorow you die. If I believed what you believed I would not waste my time on here or with reading this fabel - the bible. I know your not on here for my good as if to save me from literalism but for your own ego. What are you a preacher of what? your false understanding of the gospel; is that what you want me to convert to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 06-24-2007 1:43 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 06-24-2007 10:49 AM shiloh has not replied
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2007 8:01 PM shiloh has replied

shiloh
Junior Member (Idle past 6115 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 06-21-2007


Message 46 of 310 (408176)
07-01-2007 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Dr Adequate
06-30-2007 8:01 PM


Re: Except of course ...
Thanks for your reply.
First, if it is Satan then it can be taken literaly.
Second, If it it not literal it does not necessitate against its historicity.
Third, there are masc. personal pronouns used in the latter part of verse 15.
Fourth, if you don't think this is a good probability and at least a possibilty then theres no hope for you.
Michael Heiser has an article on the subject that would be helpful.
Enjoy.
Here is his website Welcome michaelsheiser.com - BlueHost.com
Here the link to some of his short articles http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/dcpdflisting.htm - some are free and some are $2.00-6.00. Maybe you can learn somthing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2007 8:01 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2007 4:02 AM shiloh has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024