Bring science to the Bible (Bring science to the Church)

The thing is, you can't disprove anything. You can say, "oh, it's impossible to separate an ocean so a nation can walk across," but how can you disprove God's acts? Doesn't it say, "with God, all things are possible..."? I agree that you can't disprove evolution, but you can't disprove the Bible simply because things back then aren't happening now.

"with God, all things are possible..."?

Where does it say that?

Realized I was responding to a post over a year old and deleted the whole thing.

Edited by truthlover, : No reason given.

Matt. 19:26 and Mark 10:27

---

We cannot direct the wind, but we can adjust the sails.

shammah.rcv.googlepages.com

Rose Creek Village

To be great, one does not have to be mad, but definitely it helps. ~Percy Cerutty, Australian track coach, 1952 Olympics

Too bad. I almost always learn something from everyone of your posts.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The thing is, you can't disprove anything. You can say, "oh, it's impossible to separate an ocean so a nation can walk across," but how can you disprove God's acts? Doesn't it say, "with God, all things are possible..."?

Well this seems a little confused.

It is perfectly true that an omnipotent God could do anything, but that doesn't mean we can't tell what he has or hasn't in fact done. He could have made the whole world bright pink, but we can be sure that he didn't.

Hence, arguments against various aspects of the Bible don't rest on a claim that God couldn't do such-and-such a thing (the Flood, for example) but on the fact that the evidence shows that he didn't.

I almost always learn something from everyone of your posts.

Just saw this. Thank you. Actually, though, I was irritated with something you wrote in this thread a couple years ago, and I'm not sure I wrote it very nicely. In fact, I'm sure I didn't, so I don't mind rewriting it.

I'll tell you what it was, though, more politely. It's from message 6.

That is why every major Christian Church accepts the Theory of Evolution and opposes teaching Biblical Creationism.

I don't belong to the Southern Baptists or the Assembly of God, but if I did, I would find this pretty insulting. The Southern Baptists are the largest Protestant denomination in the US, and while they have no official statement on evolution, it is clear from what you can find on their denomination's main web site (sbc.net) that they are generally opposed to evolution. They certainly don't accept it! The Assembly of God, maybe 3rd or 4th on the list, has a statement of faith leaving not much room for evolution, and from experience I can tell you their members are almost exclusively opposed.

When you say things like "every major Christian church," it sounds to me like you're disparaging all the fundamentalists as not major Christian churches and also like you're looking down your nose at them. That's how I feel, and I am both an evolutionist and openly opposed to the Baptist gospel. It would have to be worse if I were a Baptist.

---

We cannot direct the wind, but we can adjust the sails.

shammah.rcv.googlepages.com

Rose Creek Village

To be great, one does not have to be mad, but definitely it helps. ~Percy Cerutty, Australian track coach, 1952 Olympics

Good points, but I was thinking world-wide.

I should have said Almost all.

So if I offended anyone and if they think I might be saying their sect is not a major Christian Church, I apologize.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I figured you were thinking world-wide. I could be missing something, but I think there's only a few "world-wide" churches in that sense. It's really just the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches, though I realize there's at least seven branches of Orthodox churches. So "all" the major Christian churches just doesn't sound like a reference to them.

And thank you, by the way, for the comment about learning from my posts. People, with only rare exceptions, are very kind to me on this forum.

quote:

---

When you say things like "every major Christian church," it sounds to me like you're disparaging all the fundamentalists as not major Christian churches and also like you're looking down your nose at them. That's how I feel, and I am both an evolutionist and openly opposed to the Baptist gospel. It would have to be worse if I were a Baptist.

---

So, don't you consider Catholics to be Christians, then?

Hi, nator, I've been gone to Myanmar the last two weeks.

So, don't you consider Catholics to be Christians, then?

I'm not sure how you got that from what you quoted. Maybe you could explain.

However, as a general response, I don't consider the Roman Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, the Methodist Church or any other major Christian church to be "real churches." I do consider it possible for Catholics, Baptists, and Methodists to be real Christians.

Myanmar, however, got me to wondering more whether I'm a real Christian, not someone else. I have a series of blog posts on that at shammahrcv.blogspot.com. If you get bored, that is. My blogs tend to be long.

I am perturbed, flabbergasted, and disturbed by the continuing efforts of ignorant, misguided, and scripturally incorrect religious people to foist their misconceptions, under the guise of ‘scientific theories’ (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) upon the educational system. In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual reality and Biblical truth; and are a tremendous disservice to God and His interests concerning the human race. Please objectively consider the enclosed information. May it finally put to rest the ‘red herring’ of an evolution/Genesis conflict. Should you find it to be of value, feel free to disseminate it as far and wide as you wish.

The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.
Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.
Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-Creation" argument.
For we are told that in the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth; but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the six days. The work of those days was, as we shall presently see, quite a different thing from original creation: they were times of restoration, and the word asah is generally used in connection with them.
Now asah signifies to make, fashion, or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a house, or prepare a meal.139
To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.
If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. The paramount question, for both "evolutionists" and "Creationists," should be: "Do evolution and Genesis concur?" In other words, is Genesis (particularly Chapters One and Two) an account of the evolutionary process, as we understand it?

There are six specific categories of life formed in the six?day account: 1. Plants in the sea, 2. Vegetation (plants and trees) on the
land, 3. Life (fish) in the sea, 4. Birds over the earth, 5. Life (cattle, etc.) on the earth, 6. Man.
The order of their listing in the six?day account is in the same specific chronological order of appearance determined by scientifically derived (evolutionary) evidence:
O1. Sea-plants: Pre?Cambrian 531 million B.C.
2. Land vegetation: Mid?Silurian 365?380 million B.C.
3. Aquatic life: Devonian 255?316 million B.C.
4. Birds: Jurassic 131 million B.C.
5. Land life: Paleocene Epoch 50?60 million B.C.
6. Man: Late Tertiary Period 1?3 million B.C.

Do you really believe that this is coincidental? How did Moses know the correct order when he wrote Genesis thousands of years ago, long before the rise of the scientific methods that have objectively verified the Genesis account? The mathematical odds against this being coincidental are 720 to 1; in other words, 720 to 1 that this account is divinely inspired, since divine inspiration is the only alternative to coincidence. Truly the Bible is the inspired Word of God!

quote:

---

I agree that you can't disprove evolution, but you can't disprove the Bible simply because things back then aren't happening now.

---

This argument is archaic. The onus is on the claimant to prove something exists.

You can't prove something doesn't exist.

For example, I could run around claiming you are a cannibal. There is no way to prove to me or anyone you're not a cannibal. All those people who went missing last year in your area? You ate them. Prove to me you didn't.

Start to get the picture?

There are six specific categories of life formed in the six?day account: 1. Plants in the sea, 2. Vegetation (plants and trees) on the land, 3. Life (fish) in the sea, 4. Birds over the earth, 5. Life (cattle, etc.) on the earth, 6. Man. The order of their listing in the six?day account is in the same specific chronological order of appearance determined by scientifically derived (evolutionary) evidence: O1. Sea-plants: Pre?Cambrian 531 million B.C. 2. Land vegetation: Mid?Silurian 365?380 million B.C. 3. Aquatic life: Devonian 255?316 million B.C. 4. Birds: Jurassic 131 million B.C. 5. Land life: Paleocene Epoch 50?60 million B.C. 6. Man: Late Tertiary Period 1?3 million B.C.

Under current knowledge Fish can be found as far back as the Cambrian and mammals precede the birds. The first true birds don't appear until the Cretaceous whereas the mammals are found in the Jurassic and possibly the Triassic. From The Ancestor's Tale

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008