|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do atoms confirm or refute the bible? | |||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2795 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
I would have to agree, of course, with most of what you have said but would stop short of blaming the book itself for all the evil that is done in its name. It is, after all, just a book. The evil is done by the charlatan class (clergy) and the army of ignorant believers which they hold in thrall.
I believe the "chinese menu" analogy is a good one, given the 100+ translations (most currently out of print) which have been created in the English language alone. The oldest texts themselves, while they may be varied in reading from one edition to the next are, I think, more true to the times in which they were written, or edited, or revised. It is the sheer antiquity of it which best holds my interest. That and the opportunity to contradict the dogma by way of analyzing the script. The dogma which has so negatively influenced my life. I am not a political scientist but my impression is that church and state have been united in most ages and most states prior to advent of the American constitution. Under such circumstance civil and religious codes become indestinguisable. The law of the king is the law of god and vice versa. You know the drill: Let God rule our country. Hail King Jesus. Notice that it is never modernized. They never laud him: President Jesus. There is no democracy under theocracy. No religious liberty for sure. You are absolutely right. If there is a God who has a message for modern man then he should say so. I don't need Jehovah's Witnesses coming to my door to tell me what God wants. He can send me an email, or ring my cell phone, or drop by for a personal visit. Otherwise I'll just have to assume that the universe is operating according to 'his' plan. God gets what God wants; doesn't he? Isn't that what being God is all about? Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DemonScythe Inactive Member |
quote: People are using the bible instead of Science for their opinion on how Earth and the rest of the universe formed.
quote: So, that would mean we should base the truth on their Bronze-Age knowledge instead of Information-Age knowledge?
quote: Like how snakes have legs?, and are evil? Like how the Sun and the Moon are created at the same time?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
herrmann Junior Member (Idle past 6172 days) Posts: 11 Joined: |
Genesis 2:7 KJV "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
This could be metaphorically refering to man as being a coagulation of atoms. It would be to much of a controversy for god to write something that stated exactly that man was made of atoms. This would allienate certain generations from Christianity (or Judaism as the case may be). Instead God would have chosen to say that man was made of parts in a more agreeable way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
SteelyPhil Junior Member (Idle past 5857 days) Posts: 3 Joined: |
What is the point of talking about atoms? Since the Bible does not talk about them, it cannot refute or confirm anything. I do believe atoms exist; however, they are merely the mechanism through which God has done his work. The science of the matter is entirely inconsequential once you accept God's word as truth...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5830 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
I know this is off topic, but seeing how this thread has been inactive for quite a while now...
SteelyPhil writes
quote:And how do you know the word of God?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5830 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
herrmann writes
quote:I've been racking my brain trying to figure out how this particular passage could be metaphorically referring to man being made of atoms. Could you please explain this a little more? quote:Not all dirt are made of the same stuff. And even then, atoms are not agreeable to each other at all. There are different types of atoms, each having its own set of properties.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Equinox,
Equinox writes: There are many of passages and even section in the Bible that talk about scientifically testable things, and about the physical nature of the real world (such as the passages in Psalms and Proverbs describing stars, the sky, weather, and such, the genetics of Gen 30, etc.).
Would an example be EXD:34:28 Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
Leviticus 34:28 writes: And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. Edited by Force, : edit Thanks To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I concur, by virtue of this being an appropriate term to address all generations of mankind. Man is for sure made of the earth's elements [oxygen, water, minerals such as calcium, iron, iodine, etc], and the dust is its basic particles, even those smaller than atoms and quarks. Life, from the inorganic, is also catered to in genesis, very appropriately - and there is no alternative answer in science how life evolved from matter. One has to respect an ancient document which nominates 'dust' as the basic comonents of life [as opposed head-bashing dieties battling for superiority]; and which also says the universe is finite with a 'beginning'; a formless void followed by form [entropy], and goes on to record the first chronological emergence of life forms [evolution], each species containing a seed which is able to transmit all data for repro. This is 100% science, even when it has percieved variances from some current notions of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 40 days and nights without food, is not controverisal or unscientific: in this particular context. The text is not saying John Doe did so, but that this occured in its given and qualified extraordinary context only.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
IamJoseph,
IamJoseph writes: 40 days and nights without food, is not controverisal or unscientific: in this particular context. The context is unscientific if a man can go 40 days and 40 nights without eating or drinking. The idea that the verse is controversial is irrelevant. The context of the verse is like watching a marvel comics movie at the theater. We live in reality man! If there is a God out there, the way by which it does things, will be identified via Science. Edited by Force, : edit Edited by Force, : edit Edited by Force, : grammar edit Thanks To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Its not unscientific in its context, but only if it is seperated from God speaking to a human. One cannot say, the Creator premise is unscientific - there is no scientific alternative or disproof.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
IamJoseph,
anything that is supernatural is unscientific. Anything that is supernatural is not real. If God exists then it is a natural being. A being that Science will advocate. Therefor if a phenomena is supernatural it is unscientific and unreal regardless of the context. Edited by Force, : edit Edited by Force, : edit Thanks To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Whoa! - not so fast if your talking science. Which part of the creation account in Genesis is unscientific? 1. That the universe was 'created' and is 'finite' - as opposed to which other scientific alternative theory? 2. That formless became formed [entropy] - how else? 3. That light was a primodial factor - what else would you nominate? 4. That the elements were critically seperated [eg. water from land; light from darkness; etc]- how else could life emerge? 5. That the first emergence of life forms were dual-gendered ['Man and woman created he them'] - this is a legitimate premise, with no alternative to a female emerging from a dual-gendered life? 6. That there was a graduating chronological order of life forms - sea born; air born, transit mamals, land based, humans [Evolution]? 7. That repro is via the seed factor - is this not manifest? 8. That a seed shall follow its own kind - is this not manifest? 9. That humans were the final life form? 10. That speech endowed humans are less than 6000 years old, vindicated by the world's most accurate and oldest calender - with no counter conclusive proof anywhere? I would say, science was introduced in genesis, with the first cosmological account of the universe's formation and that it is finite, given in an orderly, step by step description [scientific]. Medicine, a foremost faculty of science, was also introduced here, with the first seperation of it from the occult: consider the first recording, ID, treatment, quarantine of leprosy, which is a form of incurable malignancy, that it is both contagious and infecticious, that the victim requires seperation from the community, all possessions destroyed by fire - eg. wood, but not iron. Previous and outside of the OT, a leper was regarded cursed by an evil spell - while the OT was first to dislodge this notion. The premise of ex nihilo also stands, because we have no alternative scientific explanation for the universe emergence. It had to be created, via something from nothing, because at one time there were no tools and elements to produce matter or energy. Creationism and Monotheism are 100% scientific premises - with no alternatives. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: There is no such thing as nature - this is only an expression we use as a placebo for the unexplained. Please show me a thing called nature in a science vase, how many types and colors they come in, how is it produced: then let's define what is natural and un-natural. I say, the term 'nature' is not scientific - actually, and thus not a suitable responsa.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
IamJoseph,
you're insane man! Get help! Thanks To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024